Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

Lancashire Asylums Board Bill [Lords].

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Southern Railway Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

LONDON, MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL (Substituted Bill),

—"to confer further powers upon the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

APPEALS.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will take steps to have the Royal Warrants so amended that local pensions committees may, if they think fit, authorise the payment of the travelling expenses of any relative, friend, or other person who, in their opinion, should accompany a pensioner laying his case before the appeals tribunal, in order that his claim may be adequately presented?

Captain Viscount CURZON: 21.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether the Government have yet come to a definite decision with reference to the representation of an appellant or the provision of expert assistance before the final appeal tribunal?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Frederick Roberts): As I informed the hon. and gallant Member for Loughborough (Brigadier-General Spears), last week, I am in consultation with the Lord Chancellor on these matters.

Mr. THOMSON: Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman, apart from the Lord Chancellor, to obtain powers whereby assistance can be given to pensioners appealing to the local pensions committee?

Mr. ROBERTS: I think it would be better to let the consultation conclude before I make any efforts in that direction.

Viscount CURZON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that this matter will be pressed, and will not be unduly delayed by the conference which he is having with the Lord Chancellor?

Mr. ROBERTS: Certainly, I will give that assurance.

Mr. S. ROBERTS: 13.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is prepared to allow the reopening of cases where the right of appeal to the House of Lords Pensions Appeal Tribunal has expired through lapse of time?

Mr. F. ROBERTS: The right of appeal is limited by Statute to the period of one year. I have, therefore, no authority to adopt this suggestion.

Mr. S. ROBERTS: Where there has been a change of circumstances and new facts have arisen, and where a prima facie case arises, will the right hon. Gentleman consider it?

Mr. F. ROBERTS: If the hon. Member can give me the facts of such cases, they certainly will be considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEDICAL EXAMINATION, LITTLEHAMPTON.

Lieut.-Colonel RUDKIN: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that Littlehampton ex-service men are being sent to Portsmouth for medical examination at great and unnecessary expense to the public and considerable inconvenience to themselves and their employers, when these examinations can be carried out by the medical officer in attendance at the clinic in Littlehampton; whether he is aware of feeling on the matter in the locality; and whether he will take steps to remove this grievance without delay?

Mr. ROBERTS: Through a misunderstanding, which I regret, a few pensioners from Littlehampton were summoned to Portsmouth last month. The matter was, however, set right almost immediately, and advantage, is being taken of the facilities at the Littlehampton clinic as formerly.

Lieut.-Colonel RUDKIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that there will be no repetition of such an occurrence, whereby public money is wasted which should go towards the pensions of ex-service men?

Mr. ROBERTS: I am sure that this was only a clerical error, and as far as it can be prevented it shall not arise again.

Oral Answers to Questions — ACTS AND REGULATIONS (CODIFICATION).

Mr. BAKER: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions, whether he will arrange for the codification of the Pensions Acts and regulations and publish them together with a comprehensive index?

Mr. ROBERTS: I do not think the time has yet arrived to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion, but it will be borne in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMBINED AWARDS.

Mr. GROVES: 5.
asked the Minister of Pensions, the number of men in receipt of a combined award under Article 1,163 of the 1914 Warrant; and whether he will make representations to the Treasury asking that these pensioners may be eligible for increase of pension under the Pensions Increase Act?

Mr. ROBERTS: Approximately 7,000 men are in receipt of awards of the nature referred to. The point raised in the second part of the question affects also the Service Departments, with whom the position of the men concerned is under discussion.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL RATINGS.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 11.
asked the Minister of Pensions why, in the case of a naval rating whose cause of discharge has recently been altered from demobilised to invalided by the Admiralty, pension has only been granted from the date of such alteration, observing that the man in question was invalided in February, 1919, and that he has been the victim of a clerical error?

Mr. ROBERTS: If, as I assume, my hon. and gallant Friend's question refers to the re-assessment of service disability pensions, I would point out that these pensions were expressly designed to compensate men who were prevented by invaliding from completing the full term of service for which they had engaged. It is clearly a definite concession to extend this allowance to men who were demobilised, and whose careers were not, therefore, in any sense cut short by reasons of health, but solely by the fact that their services, like those of other men, ceased to be required. In cases of this nature payment is made only from the date on which in each case the concession is granted. If my hon. and gallant Friend will let me have particulars of any case he has in mind, I shall be glad to look into it.

Sir B. FALLE: 12.
asked the Minister of Pensions what is the position of invalided naval pre-War pensioners who were called up for service in the Great War, and again invalided, with regard to re-assessment of pension; and when it is likely that a decision will be arrived at, the matter having been under consideration for over four years?

Mr. ROBERTS: I regret it is not possible to give the full information asked for in my hon. and gallant Friend's question. The preparation of the Order in Council has been delayed owing to technical difficulties which are being discussed with the Department concerned, but wherever possible re-assessment is being carried out in anticipation of the requisite instrument.

Sir B. FALLE: Will it be a very long time before it is approved?

Mr. ROBERTS: That I cannot say.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHILDREN OF DECEASED OFFICERS.

Mr. CLUSE: 14.
asked the Minister of Pensions what allowances are paid under the regulations of the Special Grants Committee to the children of deceased officers by means of educational grants or otherwise, and to what age these are payable; what allowances are paid to the children of deceased non-commissioned officers and other ranks, and at what age these allowances cease; and whether he proposes to introduce any regulation which will give the children of other ranks the same emoluments as the children of deceased officers?

Mr. ROBERTS: I am sending my hon. Friend copies of the regulations of the Special Grants Committee for officers and for "other ranks," from which he will gather the provision made for allowances in exceptional cases in respect of the children of deceased officers, non-commissioned officers and men. Such allowances are subject to the same age limits as allowances under the Royal Warrants. The last part of the question will have my consideration.

Mr. CLUSE: 15.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has withdrawn the regulation prohibiting members of war pensions committees administering the pensions of children from banking any surplus of the weekly pension, and stipulating that money not expended should be returned to the Pension Issue Office; whether this regulation deprives the orphan children of any interest that may accumulate; and whether in future any savings may be retained for the benefit of motherless children and Section 9 children in the hands of the members of the war pension committees who are looking after the children?

Mr. ROBERTS: I am making further inquiries into the points raised in my hon. Friend's question, and I will communicate with him later.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINAL AWARDS.

Captain RAMAGE: 18.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware of the hardship caused to ex-service men in cases where a final award of, say, 104 weeks and £20, is made, by reason of the fact that the man must lodge his appeal within one year of the date of the notification of the award; that having appealed within the currency of the period of the award the man is debarred from any further appeal at the expiration of that period, although his disability may continue unabated; and if he will undertake to have this hardship remedied?

Mr. ROBERTS: I am in some doubt as to the type of case the hon. and gallant Member has in mind, but I presume he refers to cases in which an award of final weekly allowance is made for a minor disability of less than 20 per cent. assessment. Cases of minor disablement have never, under the Pensions Warrants, been entitled to a continuing pension, and their position in this respect has not been affected by the final award.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

Mr. FREDERICK THOMSON: 20.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether proposals are being considered for the abolition of the Scottish Region and the Scottish Pension Issue Office; and whether he is aware that the adoption of such proposals would be highly detrimental to the interests of ex-service men in Scotland?

Mr. ROBERTS: No such proposals as those referred to in the first part of this question are at present under consideration.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it not a fact that the Scottish Pension Issue Office has worked admirably?

Mr. ROBERTS: I understand that that is the fact.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.

Major COLFOX: 8.
asked the Minister of Pensions to what cause is due the reduction announced by him to have
taken place under the present Government in the proportion of ex-service men to non ex-service men employed in the more highly salaried posts in his Ministry?

Mr. ROBERTS: The position is that suggested by the hon. and gallant Member in his supplementary question of the 6th instant. Neither I myself nor my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is an ex-service man.

Major COLFOX: May I ask the Home Secretary, as representing the Leader of the House, whether he is aware that thousands of ex-service pensioners throughout this country bitterly resent the appointment of a man with the record of the Parliamentary Secretary to administer their pensions?

Mr. J. HARRIS: 9.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that of the 25 promotions made to substantive rank and 19 to acting rank only one in the former class and seven in the latter class wore ex-service men; will he see that ex-service men are accorded special preference; and why nearly all the higher posts in this Ministry are held by non-service personnel?

Mr. ROBERTS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, merit is the chief factor governing promotions, but, where the conditions were equal, preference would be given to the ex-service man. The majority of the higher-established posts in the Ministry are held by civil servants with long service who were above military age or were compulsorily retained in the interests of public administration, whereas the men released for military service were, as a rule, younger and had shorter Civil Service experience.

Mr. HARRIS: May we take it that, in the event of vacancies occurring in the higher posts, other things being equal, preference will be given to ex-service men?

Mr. ROBERTS: That is what I have stated.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 23.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, seeing that the removal expenses of permanent civil servants are borne by the State, he can
secure the same advantages to all ex-service men in his Department now under notice of dismissal if alternative employment be found for them?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): I have been asked to reply. I would refer to the answer which I gave on the 26th February to the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle West (Captain Ramage).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 24.
asked the Minister of Pensions what alternative employment, if any, has been offered to the 193 ex-service men who are under notice of discharge expiring, for the greater part, at the end of this month?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOSEPH NALL: 22.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the hardship now being inflicted on many disabled men by discharging them from his Department; whether he can give an assurance that efficient clerks who are disabled men will be retained in preference to women; and, if so, will he cancel notices now pending?

Mr. ROBERTS: The question of offering alternative employment to the ex-service men now under notice, and in particular to those of them who are disabled, is still under consideration. Apart from the question of a change in working hours which, if adopted, will relieve the situation for the time being, I hope to arrive at a solution of this problem which will commend itself to all sections of the staff affected. At my request representatives of the staff associations concerned are now discussing the possibility of reconciling their conflicting claims.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman now promise that these ex-service men, if proved efficient, shall be retained in the service? The uncertainty is an absolute nightmare to them.

Mr. ROBERTS: I should prefer not to say anything further, in view of the consultations which are taking place with the organisations concerned.

Major COLFOX: Is it the policy of the Ministry of Pensions to reduce the proportion of ex-service men employed in the Ministry, particularly in the higher grades?

Oral Answers to Questions — EVICTION (WILLESDEN).

Mr. VIANT: 41.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been directed to a disturbance of a threatening character among the residents of Chapter Road, Willesden, on 8th March, arising from the eviction of an ex-service man and his family of five children who are under the age of nine years, such eviction being effected to provide accommodation for a young couple anticipating marriage; and will he consider the introduction of a Bill to prevent such evictions?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Greenwood): My right hon. Friend's attention has not previously been called to this case. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave yesterday in reply to the hon. Member for Greenwich.

Mr. MILLS: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are very many cases—no fewer than seven—pending in the Dartford Division, where eviction orders have been given respecting cases similar to this, and if the present obstruction to the private Member's Bill persists, will he bring in a one-Clause Bill providing for alternative accommodation?

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR MINISTRY.

Mr. J. HARRIS: 75.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why no steps have been taken to establish ex-service draughtsmen employed at the Air Ministry under paragraph 45 of the third Lytton Report?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Leach): The question of the application of Clause 45 of the Lytton Report can arise only after established posts have been approved, and I understand that the conditions of service and pay of draughtsmen serving in Government Departments have been, and still are, under consideration as a general question. So far as the Air Ministry is concerned, due regard will be had to the recommendations in Clause 45 of the Lytton Report when the question of making appointments to established posts arises.

Mr. MILLS: 76.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air to what extent paragraph 45 of the third Lytton Report has
been put into operation in regard to the technical staff at the Air Ministry; and what is the reason for postponing the establishment of suitably qualified ex-service technical officers?

Mr. LEACH: The question of applying Clause 45 of the Lytton Report has not yet arisen in the Air Ministry, as, owing to the uncertain conditions which have prevailed, no established posts, to which appointments under Clause 45 could be made, have yet been approved. Due regard will be had to the recommendations contained in the Clause when the question of making appointments to established posts arises.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE (DISMISSALS).

Sir K. WOOD: 86.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether a number of competent ex-service men in the Civil Service are under notice to leave during March; and whether he is making any effort to retain these men pending the Report of the Southborough Committee?

Mr. GRAHAM: I would refer to the answer which I gave on the 6th March to the hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Nottingham.

Sir K. WOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman going to make a definite statement on the matter and to say what is to happen to these men?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have received many deputations on the matter. The position is that the work is coming to an end, and we cannot take on staff when there is no longer work for them. We are doing everything we can to find employment for these men.

Captain TERRELL: Will the hon. Gentleman issue instructions so that preference will be given to the employment of ex-service men in the Civil Service over and above the employment of conscientious objectors?

Mr. MASTERMAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed me two days ago that the Southborough Committee was at present sitting, whether he was not wrong in that statement, and whether my information is not correct, that it has not been even re-constituted with a view to sitting, and would he care to make
another statement which would remove an answer which has caused considerable astonishment?

Mr. GRAHAM: I will make inquiry into the matter. I require notice of a question of that kind.

Captain TERRELL: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I have a reply to my question?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member repeatedly asks the same question.

Captain TERRELL: On a point of Order. Why should conscientious objectors be employed? There are some of them on the Front Bench.

Oral Answers to Questions — JOINT SUBSTITUTION BOARD.

Major YERBURGH: 90.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many temporary ex-service civil servants are at present upon the pool of the Joint Substitution Board awaiting re-allocation; and how many of these fall in the categories of home service, overseas, and disabled, respectively?

Mr. GRAHAM: On the 7th March the number of ex-service men, previously temporarily employed in clerical or manipulative capacities, on the pool of the Joint Substitution Board for London and the South Eastern area, which extends from Sussex to Norfolk, was


Disabled
387


Overseas, non-disabled
234


Home Service, non-disabled
759


The number of those previously temporarily employed in administrative or technical grades was 339; of whose Army service as a group details are not readily available. Of the total, approximately 620 are home-service non-disabled men from whom no communication has been received by the Board for over 12 months.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW RELIEF.

Mr. W. THORNE: 102.
asked the Minister of Health the number of ex-service men with their dependants receiving out-relief; the number residing in workhouses; and the number charged to local rates who are in mental institutions?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers which my
right hon. Friend gave yesterday in reply to a number of similar questions.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that this information can be obtained by circularising the boards of guardians throughout the country, and could the hon. Gentleman give an answer in a fortnight's time?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: 16.
asked the Minister of Pensions what was the number of appointments made at salaries of £400 a year and upwards in the Ministry of Pensions during the years 1920, 1921, 1922 and 1923, respectively; in what branches were the appointments made; and what were the number of clerks in Grades I, II and III dismissed in the same years?

Mr. ROBERTS: The fluctuations in the amount of bonus payable, the changes in administration brought about by the War Pensions Act, 1921, alterations in organisation, and the substitution of men for women, render it difficult, without considerable research, to furnish my hon. and gallant Friend with the figures asked for, which, even if they could be readily supplied, would not give a reliable aspect of the position for the periods mentioned.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly reply to the last part of the question, as to the number of clerks in Grades I, II and III that were dismissed?

Mr. ROBERTS: As I have indicated, considerable research would be required for that. If my hon. and gallant Friend persists in the point, it shall be done.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: 17.
asked the Minister of Pensions what are the names, rank, and salaries of the medical officers of his Department who are in receipt of pensions other than disability pensions; what is the amount of such pension, and whether any officers have been discharged who are not in receipt of service pensions and able to carry out the duties of those officers who
have been retained and who are in receipt of pensions in addition to their salaries?

Mr. ROBERTS: As the reply contains a number of figures, I am circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Name.
Rank.
Salary.
Pension.




£
£
s.
d.


Sir A. Lisle Webb, K.B.E., C.B., etc.
D.G.M.S.
1,800
525
0
0


Fleet Surg. H. X. Browne
Deputy Commr. of Med. Services
875
547
0
0


Col. R. J. Copeland
Deputy Commr. of Med. Services
865
800
0
0


Dr. R. H. Hall
Deputy Commr. of Med. Services
875
600
0
0


Surg. Cmdr. G. E. McLeod
Deputy Commr. of Med. Services
1,020
510
0
0


Surg. Cmdr. J. A. Moon
Deputy Commr. of Med. Services
850
600
0
0


Dr. H. G. Smeeth
Deputy Commr. of Med. Services
850
50
0
0


Dr. R. E. Williamson
Deputy Commr. of Med. Services
945
80
7
6


Dr. G. Y. C. Hunter
Deputy Commr. of Med. Services
850
400
0
0


Surg. Cmdr. H. B. Hall
Deputy Commr. of Med. Services
920
600
0
0


Surg. Lt.-Cmdr. C. F. Willes
Deputy Commr. of Med. Services
875
200
0
0


Surg. Lt.-Col. C. R. Kilkelly, C.M.G., M.V.O.
Hospital Supt.
700
396
0
0


Depy. Surg. Gen. E. H. Meaden, C.M.G., R.N.
Hospital Supt.
500
600
0
0


Col. A. E. Weld
Hospital Supt.
800
540
0
0


Col. F. I. Greig
Hospital Supt.
1,000
396
0
0


Col. A. W. N. Bowen
Hospital Supt.
900
600
0
0


Col. H. A. Bray, C.B., C.M.G.
Hospital Supt.
800
800
0
0


Dr. J. Cowan
Pathologist
600
600
0
0

Every care is taken to ensure that medical officers in receipt of pensions of this kind are not, other things being equal, being retained in preference to officers not in receipt of such pensions: but it will be understood that officers in this position have had administrative and medical experience of a kind to make their services particularly valuable to the Ministry.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (CORRESPONDENCE).

Mr. MASTERMAN: The following question stood on the Order Paper in the name of
51. "To ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that many Members of this House, anxious not to overload the Order Paper with Questions concerning individual cases of grievance, apply direct for explanation or redress to the various Departments, that they receive courteous acknowledgment of their letters, but no further replies upon the actual matters at issue; and whether he can ensure a sufficiency of staff, if necessary by retaining in employment the ex-service men now sentenced to dismissal, by whom these questions can be answered with greater promptitude.

Following is the reply:

The following is a list of full-time medical officers in the employ of the Ministry with salaries exceeding £500 per annum who are also in receipt of pensions, other than disability pensions, from public funds:

Mr. MASTERMAN: Before this question be put, may I, in justice to the Department, say that since I put the question on the Paper I have received one very satisfactory answer from one of the Departments concerned. May I also, in justice to myself—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]. It is not a speech, but a personal explanation. May I say that I am merely speaking for the general body of Members?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): While I cannot accept the statement in the first part of the right hon. Member's question, I should be glad if he would communicate with me if he has any particular case in mind.

Mr. S. TURNER: Is it not a fact that most hon. Members receive most courteous answers, and very quickly?

Mr. CLYNES: So I am informed.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVANTS.

APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE.

Mr. BAKER: 78.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is prepared
to grant full civil rights to civil servants on the lines of the Admiralty concessions to the men of the lower deck?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Snowden): The Government have decided to appoint a special committee to inquire into the question. I hope to be able to make an announcement at an early date as to the composition. The terms of reference will be as follows:
To inquire into the existing regulations governing the candidature for Parliament and for municipal bodies of persons in the service of the Crown, and to report whether any, and, if so, what changes should be made in those regulations.

Major COLFOX: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether there is any subject important or otherwise which has not yet been referred by the Labour Government to a Special Committee?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINOR GRADES (SICK PAY).

Mr. J. HARRIS: 87.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is now in a position to state that the Government have decided to grant sick pay to temporary messengers and minor grades?

Mr. GRAHAM: This question is still under consideration and I hope to come to a decision very shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (ATTENDANTS).

Mr. SCURR: 88.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that last October a number of Ushers and other attendants at the High Court of Justice, who had 40 years of service to their credit, were discharged at the age of 70 without a pension; whether, considering that the remuneration of these public servants is not sufficient to enable them to provide for old age, he will take steps to put the existing staff on a pensionable basis; and if he will consider the granting of a compassionate allowance to those already discharged?

Mr. GRAHAM: I am informed that four Ushers and five other attendants at the Royal Courts of Justice were discharged in October last. These officers were not entitled to pension, but they were awarded the normal gratuities payable on retirement. A scheme of reorganisation has now been introduced under which the Ushers and certain of the attendants will
in future be established, and many of the existing staff have been admitted to the pensionable establishment under the terms of this scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOTBALL CUP FINAL.

Mr. LUMLEY: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied that the arrangements which are being made for this year's cup final at Wembley will be sufficient to prevent the overcrowding which occurred last year?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. A. Henderson): I am advised that the arrangements made with the exhibition authorities, which include structural improvements, and improvements in the organisation for dealing with the crowd, should prove adequate to the requirements so far as they can be foreseen.

Mr. MILLS: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there will probably be a great influx of visitors from Burnley on this occasion?

Mr. HANNON: Ts the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Council of the exhibition have made very substantial changes in their organisation plans as compared with last year?

Mr. HENDERSON: I indicated that in the answer.

Mr. TOOLE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last Saturday in Manchester there was the biggest provincial crowd ever gathered together—76,000—without a hitch or an accident, and in view of that will he consider the question of bringing the Chief Constable of Manchester to London?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE FORCES.

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT.

Mr. BAKER: 27.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the abolition of the special branch of the Criminal Investigation Department as a separate organisation, and transfer the staff to the central branch?

Mr. HENDERSON: The division of the detective department of the Metropolitan Police into two branches is an arrangement of many years' standing,
and I know of no recent occurrence pointing to any need for reviewing it. Both branches are now responsible to the same Assistant Commissioner.

PUBLIC CARRIAGES (LICENSING STAFF).

Mr. GILBERT: 43.
asked the Home Secretary what staff of the Metropolitan Police is employed at headquarters in dealing with the licensing of motor omnibuses and cabs for the London area; and can he give the approximate annual cost of the men employed on this special work?

Mr. HENDERSON: The total number of officers employed in connection with the licensing of public carriages is 111, and the aggregate cost of their pay and pensions is approximately £51,000. These figures, however, cover the whole of the work in connection with the licensing of public carriages of all kinds (including tramcars), their inspection and supervision, and the licensing of drivers and conductors: and separate figures are not available with regard to the licensing of motor cabs and omnibuses in particular. I should add that a large proportion of the cost is met by fees, etc., received.

Mr. GILBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the staff employed on this particular work is specially earmarked, or whether it is a staff independent from the rest of the police?

Mr. HENDERSON: I am afraid I cannot answer the question without notice.

Mr. HAYES: Is it not a fact that members of the Public Carriage Branch of the Metropolitan Police are selected from the ordinary or uniform branch because of their special qualifications for the work?

DIVINE SERVICE (ATTENDANCE).

Mr. HAYES: 55.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can see his way to issue instructions to all chiefs of police that applications for change of duties submitted by police officers for the purpose of attending divine service should be sympathetically considered and, if the exigencies of the service permit, the necessary facilities be granted?

Mr. HENDERSON: There is no record at the Home Office of any complaint of lack of consideration on the point, but if my hon. Friend knows of any cases where
there is ground for complaint, and will give me particulars, I will have them looked into.

Mr. HAYES: Will the right hon. Gentleman take my word for it that there are complaints, but, obviously, it is not in the interests of the individuals concerned that I should give particulars?

POINT DUTY (WHITE OVERALLS).

Viscount CURZON: 57.
asked the Home Secretary which cities or police force have adopted white overall coats for officers employed on point duty?

Mr. HENDERSON: I will obtain the information and forward it to the Noble Lord.

CITY OF LONDON POLICE.

Mr. GILBERT: 44.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to an order issued by the Chief Commissioner of the City of London Police which requires married constables and officers to live within a three-mile radius of the City; whether he is aware that with the present housing shortage in London such an order is difficult to carry out, and has caused much dissatisfaction in the City Police; and can he cause this order to be withdrawn or modified?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have made inquiry and am informed that members of the City of London force are expected to live within three miles of the City if this is reasonably possible; but this rule is by no means rigidly enforced, and, in view of the difficulties to which my hon. Friend refers, a large number of men have been given permission to reside, for the time being, at distances up to six miles from the City.

Mr. HAYES: If I bring to the right hon. Gentleman's notice a number of cases in which this rule is being rigidly enforced, will he inquire into them?

Mr. HENDERSON: Certainly.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.

Mr. S. ROBERTS: 28.
asked the Home Secretary whether, when he gave instructions for the Circular dated the 9th February to the Clerks to the Justices, he was aware of the practice of Justices sitting by rota; whether he is aware that such a practice is most satisfactory, as giving
individual Justices more interest in their work; and whether his letter was intended to condemn such practice?

Mr. HENDERSON: The Circular referred to dealt with the question of the appointment of a Chairman in Petty Sessional areas only and was not intended to discourage any suitable arrangement, with which it was in no way incompatible, for the attendance of Justices by rota.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. CLARKE: 29.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that where a workman agrees to go before a medical referee in terms of Section 10, paragraph (1), of the principal Act (1906) he, the workman, is now being charged one-half of the referee's fee (21s.), exclusive of the sheriff clerk dues, this being contrary to the above Section, which provides that charges be met by Parliament; and will he take steps to stop such charges and have such payments refunded to the workman?

Mr. HENDERSON: I understand the hon. Member to refer to cases referred to a medical referee under paragraph (15) of the First Schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906. If so, the matter is governed by Section 25 of the amending Act of 1923, which provides that, notwithstanding anything in Section 10 of the Act of 1906, the fees for the services of the medical referee in such cases shall in future be borne by the applicant or applicants for the reference. I have no power under the Act to suspend or modify this provision.

OBSERVATION CASES IN GAOL.

Mr. STRANGER: 30.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that there are in Wormwood Scrubs Prison over 15 inmates, in Wandsworth Prison over 30 inmates, and in Pentonville Prison over 20 inmates, all confined in observation cells, but in charge of the ordinary disciplinary officer; that at night that officer has duty which requires him to parade many miles through corridors and landings; and that, in the case of Pentonville Prison, that distance is approximately 20 miles to cover during one watch; and whether in future it will be arranged to
collect these inmates of observation cells and have them confined in charge of a medical prison orderly instead of in charge of a disciplinary officer?

Mr. HENDERSON: I gave the hon. Member a full reply as regards Pentonville last Thursday, when I explained why it is not practicable at present to take the step suggested in the last part of the question. There are at Wormwood Scrubs 16 prisoners and at Wandsworth 17 prisoners in observation cells in charge of discipline officers. According to my information, the length of patrol at night in these prisons is very much less than 20 miles—possibly less than five miles.

Mr. STRANGER: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman collect these observation cases in one prison and have them under the charge of one medical orderly? There are more than 50 cases of the kind.

Mr. HENDERSON: I will take that suggestion into consideration.

Mr. HAYES: Will my right hon. Friend seek the advice of those who are engaged on the duty in order that he may arrive at an adequate expression of opinion by those engaged in the work?

ALIENS.

Mr. S. ROBERTS: 31.
asked the Home Secretary if he will state the number of aliens granted permits to land in this country for the purpose of residence during February, 1923, and February, 1924, respectively?

Mr. HENDERSON: I must ask the hon. Member to wait for the issue, in due course, of the complete Return of alien passengers for the current quarter. He will then be able to compare the figures with those for the corresponding months of the year 1923, already published.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 34.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the observations of the Deputy-Chairman of the London Sessions in sentencing an alien named Weinart; and whether he is taking every possible step to enforce the provisions of the Aliens Act?

Mr. HENDERSON: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part,
I do not read the learned magistrate's remarks as implying any reflection upon the administration of the Aliens Act, which will continue to be carried out on lines that I have already explained to the House.

Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking every possible step to enforce the provisions of the Act?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have already said so.

FIRE PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. GRAY: 33.
asked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to initiate legislation based upon the Report of the Royal Commission on Fire Brigades and Fire Protection?

Mr. HENDERSON: This Report covers a very wide range. The recommendations dealing with fire precautions in factories and workshops I hope in the main to incorporate in the Bill which is now under consideration, and the Report, I have no doubt, will afford a useful basis for legislation on other topics, as opportunity offers. As regards the recommendations made by the Commission on the subject of fire brigade organisation, I am afraid I cannot say when legislation may be possible.

Mr. GRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that large tracts of England are entirely unprovided for, and does he propose to make no provision as recommended by the Committee?

Mr. HENDERSON: I cannot add anything to what I have said in the last part of the question.

ELECTORAL REGISTER.

Major BURNIE: 35.
asked the Homo Secretary whether any representations have been made to him as to the cost of printing two registers of electors per annum instead of one, as formerly; and whether he contemplates changing this practice?

Mr. HENDERSON: Representations on the subject have been received from a few local authorities. There is, however, ample evidence that the return to a
single register would meet with strong opposition, and I do not propose to re-open the question.

LUNACY LAWS.

Sir ELLIS HUME-WILLIAMS: 36.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that the system under which alleged lunatics are apprehended and interned in asylums was not in question in the case of Harnett v. Bond and will not be affected by any judgment which the Court of Appeal may pronounce upon the facts of that particular case, he will proceed at once with the appointment of a committee to examine the system without waiting until the appeal can be heard?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The suggestion is under consideration, and my right hon. Friend hopes to be able to make an announcement very shortly.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: Is it a fact that the Government have already determined to appoint a Royal Commission on this very important subject, and, if so, can he give the names of those who have consented to serve?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The Government have promised an inquiry, but have not said in what particular form. The terms of reference are now under consideration.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: How soon shall we know what form the inquiry is to take?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Very shortly, as I said in my answer.

DANGEROUS CRIMINALS.

Mr. HANNON: 38.
asked the Home Secretary whether the three men about whom Scotland Yard recently issued a warning, and who escaped from a prison in the United States and are now in this country, were furnished with passports made out in the names now published in the Press; whether visas to enter this country were given by one of His Majesty's Consular officers in the United States; and what was the date on which Scotland Yard received the information from the United States authorities that these men were dangerous criminals?

Mr. HENDERSON: The statement published in the Press about a week ago that these men are known to have reached this country is without foundation. The second part of the question accordingly does not arise. The notice circulated by the New York police as to the escape of the men from prison reached Scotland Yard on 12th February. It was shown to certain Press representatives who called to inquire, but no warning was issued by the police.

BAKERIES (NIGHT WORK).

Mr. GROVES: 39.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the 1918 inquiry by a Whitley Council which resolved that night work be abolished in the bread and flour bakeries between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m., with the exception of dough-makers and oven firemen and their assistants, subject to the discussion of the question of Sundays, holidays and break-downs, and the 1919 Departmental Committee appointed by the Minister of Labour, which reported in favour of prohibiting night work, he will be prepared to introduce a Government Bill that will give eflect to these recommendations, thereby abolishing night work in the baking trade?

Mr. HENDERSON: A proposal for an International Convention to prohibit night baking is on the Agenda of the International Labour Conference which will meet at Geneva in June next, and the question of introducing a Bill will be considered by the Government after that Conference.

SUMMER TIME.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: 40.
asked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to lay the Report of the proceedings of the Conference regarding the dates of summer time recently held with representatives of France, Belgium and Holland?

Viscount CURZON: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the British representative at the Paris Conference upon summer time was in a minority of one, and refused any agreement with the Belgian, French, and Dutch Governments upon the date upon which summer time should commence; whether
he is aware of the great inconvenience that will result to the people of this and other countries from this action; and whether the Government will give further consideration to this matter with a view to arriving at general agreement with the other countries concerned?

Mr. HENDERSON: The members of the Conference agreed to recommend to their respective Governments that the summer time period should commence in the night of the first Saturday in April (or, if that date coincides with Easter, on the preceding Saturday), and end in the night of the first Saturday in October. It was explained by the British representative at the Conference that this recommendation would involve an alteration of the present English law, for which the sanction of Parliament would be required, and that it would not be possible to make the alteration during the present year so far at least as regards the commencement of summer time.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is it the intention of the Government to deal with the matter in the current Session?

Mr. HENDERSON: There is a Bill in the name of an hon. Member opposite, and I will make a statement on that occasion.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: What is the earliest date at which summer time can commence in this country under the present Statute law?

Viscount CURZON: Are the Government going to adhere to the recommendations of this Conference in Paris as soon as they can?

Mr. HENDERSON: It would be better if the Noble Lord will wait until the private Member's Bill is taken, when I will make a full statement of the Government's policy.

PEACE TREATIES.

PALATINATE (SPEYER AGREEMENT).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether a copy of the recent Speyer agreement, in reference to the condition of affairs in the Palatinate, which was signed by a representative of Great Britain, will be laid upon the Table of the House?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ponsonby): The results reached by the special commission were embodied, in the first place, in a declaration which was published in the London Press of the 19th February last, and, in the second place, in a memorandum addressed by the Commission to the chief representative of the Rhineland High Commission in the Palatinate. This memorandum, which was signed by the three commissioners, could only be laid with the consent of the French and Belgian Governments and its nature hardly seems to warrant publication.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. Gentleman ask for that permission? Is there any reason why we should not have this agreement?

Mr. PONSONBY: It is only a stage in the negotiations.

BRITISH SUBJECTS' LOSSES (BELGIUM).

Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether arrangements have yet been made to secure some payment on account for those British subjects who had trading interests and suffered loss through the German occupation of Belgium?

Mr. SNOWDEN: British subjects in Belgium whose claims have been submitted to the Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action will shortly receive—

Captain TERRELL: On a point of Order. We cannot hear a word.

Mr. SNOWDEN: —payments in accordance with the recommendations contained in the final reports—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"]—

Captain TERRELL: We cannot hear you.

Mr. SNOWDEN: If you were quiet you could hear me.

Captain TERRELL: It is not a question of being quiet. We cannot hear you at all.

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will read the answer again.

Captain TERRELL: I hope he speaks up.

Mr. SNOWDEN: British subjects in Belgium whose claims have been submitted to the Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action will shortly receive payments in accordance with the recommendations contained in the final Report of that Commission which has just been issued.

Mr. GWYNNE: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean, by "shortly"?

Mr. SNOWDEN: It means what it says—as soon as possible.

Captain TERRELL: How many British subjects—[HON. MEMBERS. "Speak up; we cannot hear you!"]—have claims under the heading in this question?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I cannot answer that question without notice.

Captain TERRELL: Oh, you cannot!

AMBASSADORS' CONFERENCE.

Mr. HANNON: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether instructions have recently been sent to His Majesty's Ambassador in Paris relative to his attendance on the Ambassadors' Conference; whether he continues to attend the Conference with the same regularity and authority as hitherto; and whether it is proposed to make any alteration in regard to British representation on this body?

Mr. PONSONBY: No recent instructions have been issued to His Majesty's Ambassador at Paris with regard to his attendance at the Ambassadors' Conference which he continues to attend as heretofore. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

MONTENEGRO.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will refer to the League of Nations for their arbitration a pronouncement as to the legal status of Montenegro, and as to whether this status has been outraged by Serbia; and whether, in this connection, the salient features of the de Salis and Temperley Bryce Reports will be communicated to the Council of the League, in view of the fact that M. Poincaré and the right hon. Gentleman the Member
for Paisley on 10th January, 1916, President Wilson in the eleventh of his Fourteen Points on 8th January, 1917, and the Conditions of Peace laid down by the Allies on 10th January and again on 16th April, 1919, insisted upon the restoration of Montenegro?

Mr. PONSONBY: The international status of Montenegro was determined by a vote taken at the constituent elections held in 1920 in which no party or body of opinion in Montenegro expressed itself as being opposed to union with Jugoslavia and His Majesty's Government under the circumstances could do nothing but recognise the decision. I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the Bryce Report which was laid before Parliament (Command Paper 1124, of 1921). The relations between Montenegro and the Central Government is therefore now an internal question of the Serb-Croat-Slovene State and is not a matter in which His Majesty's Government can intervene either through the League of Nations or otherwise.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Is it not a fact that Montenegrins dispute the conditions under which this vote was arrived at?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it not a fact that Montenegro was one of our first Allies in the War, and is it not a case in which the League of Nations should be consulted in the interests of Great Britain?

Mr. PONSONBY: As I have said, I think this is a matter of internal concern for the Jugoslav State.

ARMAMENTS (FRANCE).

Mr. HANNON: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether the allusion to armaments in Western France contained in his recent communication to Monsieur Poincaré referred to long-distance guns said to have been placed at two points on the French coast; whether definite information as to the existence of these guns is in the possession of His Majesty's Government; and whether it is proposed to address any communication to the French Government on the subject?

Mr. PONSONBY: The answer to the first part of this question is in the negative. I have no information as to
these alleged guns; the third part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

PRISON OFFICERS (PROMOTION).

Mr. HAYES: 53.
asked the Home Secretary whether future appointments of prison governors and deputy prison governors will be confined to applicants who have gained experience by passing through the lower grades of the service?

Mr. HENDERSON: With every desire to provide the fullest opportunities for the promotion of deserving officers from the lower ranks, I do not think that such a rule as my hon. Friend suggests could be justified.

CHINESE GAMING HOUSES.

Mr. HAYES: 54.
asked the Home Secretary whether special steps are being taken to deal with gaming and other disorderly houses run by Chinese in London, Liverpool and other large cities?

Mr. HENDERSON: Yes, Sir; wherever the possibility arises that offences of the kind indicated may be promoted by the presence of Chinese. The police are fully alive to the matter and take all appropriate steps.

EDUCATION.

NECESSITOUS SCHOOL AREAS (GRANT).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 60.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that at the present time only two English education authorities outside the London area receive any assistance from the necessitous school areas grant; and, in view of the exceptionally heavy burden borne by the ratepayers in many districts, will he take steps to modify the formula under which this grant is paid, so that a larger number of necessitous English education authorities may participate in it during the coming year?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. One of the reasons why comparatively few areas receive special extra assistance as highly rated areas is that the ordinary grant payable
to all areas gives increased aid to those in which the assessable value is low. The operation of the grant Regulations is kept under observation, and I should certainly desire to make it as equitable as possible, regard being had to the circumstances of exceptionally highly rated areas.

Mr. THOMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope of modifying the formula so that a larger number of English necessitous areas may get advantage this year?

Mr. TREVELYAN: I shall have to look into that matter.

BOOTS (PROVISION).

Mr. MARDY JONES: 61.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has had any representations from any local education authorities asking him to take steps to empower local education authorities to provide boots from educational funds, and that such expenditure be subject to the same conditions as are contained in the Education (Provisions of Meals) Acts; and whether he is prepared to ask Parliament for the necessary powers?

Mr. TREVELYAN: I have lately received representations to this effect from one local education authority. As at present advised, I am not prepared to propose legislation for this purpose.

HEADMASTERS (CLASSES).

Mr. P. HARRIS: 62.
asked the President of the Board of Education what is his attitude towards the rule now being applied in London elementary schools requiring headmasters of all elementary schools with less than 250 on their roll to be responsible for a class?

Mr. TREVELYAN: I may refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on the 21st February last to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Edmund Harvey). The Board's attitude in respect of London has been further explained in official correspondence, a copy of which I will send the hon. Member if he desires.

SECONDARY EDUCATION, WALES.

Major OWEN: 63.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether a successor to the late Sir Owen M. Edwards, chief inspector of secondary
schools in Wales, who died in May, 1920, has yet been appointed; and whether it is proposed to make such an appointment, or whether the Government will consider the desirability of a separate and autonomous authority in Wales for the administration of elementary, secondary and university education?

Mr. TREVELYAN: The existing arrangement which I found on coming into office is that the duties of Chief Inspector of Education for Wales are undertaken by the Permanent Secretary of the Welsh Department, with the assistance of two of His Majesty's inspectors acting in a supervisory capacity, and for the present I propose to continue it in operation. The second part of the question raises so large an issue that it cannot usefully be dealt with by way of question and answer.

HIGH STREET SCHOOL, BROMLEY-BY-BOW.

Mr. LANSBURY: 64.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the London County Council elementary day school at High Street, Bromley-by-Bow, was condemned as unsuitable and insanitary some years ago, and that officers of his Department have supported this condemnation, but so far nothing has been done by the London County Council to provide decent accommodation for the children of the district; and, as there are other schools of a like character in East London, will he order an immediate inspection of all schools in that area and take the necessary steps to ensure that the London County Council, as the education authority, shall immediately provide sanitary and suitable schools for the children of East London?

Mr. TREVELYAN: I am not aware that these premises are insanitary, though they are very noisy and unsatisfactory in other respects. I understand that it was the intention of the London County Council, before the War, to provide new premises, that they are considering the acquisition of a site, and that in the meantime they propose to take steps which will reduce the number of children attending this school. As regards the last part of the question, the general conditions prevailing in East London are well known to the Board's inspectors. I may add, that the London County
Council have already submitted to me a schedule of a considerable number of schools with defective premises to which they propose to give early attention.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this school has been condemned by one of his own inspectors as quite unsuitable and insanitary for the number of children who are being taught there?

Mr. TREVELYAN: I think that if the hon. Member reads my answer he will find that that is practically admitted.

RUSHOCK SCHOOL, KIDDERMINSTER.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 65.
asked the President of the Board of Education why the Rushock church school, which is within the Kidderminster district education area, has been closed, considering that until the re-organisation, which made it a school for children under 11 years of age, it was in a flourishing condition with about 36 scholars; and whether he is aware that there is no other school within two miles, that the school was built by voluntary donations, and that its retention is essential to enable labour to be got for the neighbouring farms?

Mr. TREVELYAN: The facts are not quite as stated by the hon. Gentleman. When the Rushock school was reorganised, with the consent of the managers, in March, 1923, there were not more than 20 children on the registers, and the average attendance has been under 30 every year, except one, since 1912. In December, 1923, there were six children in the school, one of whom was under four. In these circumstances, the Worcestershire Local Education Authority sought the approval of the Board for the closure of the school, and the Board, on full consideration, have decided that the school is unnecessary, provided that the authority make suitable arrangements for such conveyance of children to another school as may be required.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to reconsider the matter if a sufficient number of scholars is guaranteed for the school?

Mr. TREVELYAN: I am certainly ready to reconsider the matter.

TEACHERS' SALARIES (INCREMENTS).

Mr. BLACK: 66.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, seeing that the present scale of increments in teachers' salaries, which enables the maximum to be reached in 12 years, has worked to the detriment of the teachers in causing unemployment among those entitled to receive the higher salaries, he will convey the facts to the Burnham Committee for consideration in framing the new scale?

Mr. TREVELYAN: The Committees, which represent both teachers and local education authorities, have direct knowledge of the facts relevant to their deliberations, and I have no doubt are well aware of the point to which the hon. Member calls attention.

BLIND CHILDREN.

Mr. GROVES: 67.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has been able to investigate the circumstances resultant from the issue of Circular 1297 in January, 1923, which laid down that the number of blind children in a class should not exceed 20, whereas the previous regulation had stipulated the number to be 15; and, as the circular recommended the employment of uncertificated teachers, will he take steps to immediately withdraw this circular?

Mr. TREVELYAN: As regards the first part of the question, the revised regulations for special schools will shortly be issued in draft. The hon. Member will find that the provisions relating to the size of classes are purposely left elastic so as to suit the circumstances of different schools. As regards the qualifications of teachers, the Board's regulations have always provided for the recognition in these schools, under certain conditions, of teachers who were neither certificated nor uncertificated. While I do not propose to abandon this provision, I have no intention of lowering the standard hitherto adopted for this purpose.

OVERSEAS DOMINIONS (EXCHANGE OF TEACHERS).

Mr. P. HARRIS: 68.
asked the President of the Board of Education if the Board of Education have sanctioned generally the arrangements for the interchange of teachers by which the salaries of English teachers proceeding for 12 months to overseas Dominions and British
Colonies may be paid by the local education authority in this country; have any applications been received from local education authorities, including the County of London, for the Board's sanction to the arrangements proposed by such authorities, in view of the number of teachers in this country who are considering the possibility of effecting such exchanges, can he state the date from which the scheme generally will be in operation; and will teachers proceeding for 12 months' interchange work in an overseas Dominion at the forthcoming summer school vacation come within the operation of the scheme?

Mr. TREVELYAN: I am not yet in a position to approve proposals on the lines recommended by the last Imperial Education Conference. Such proposals have been submitted only by the London County Council, and exchanges which are being arranged for the coming school year will be effected on the basis existing before the formulation of the new proposals.

SCHOOL JOURNEYS.

Mr. P. HARRIS: 69.
asked the President of the Board of Education what is the attitude of the Board to school journeys; and whether he is prepared to recognise for grant expenditure on them by local education authorities.

Mr. TREVELYAN: I may refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on the 21st February last to my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Cecil Wilson), the answer to the last part of his question being in the affirmative.

WELLINGBOROUGH GRAMMAR SCHOOL.

Mr. COVE: 70.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that, in the recently amended scheme for the Wellingborough grammar school, the Northamptonshire County Education Committee proposed to erect a new secondary school at Wellingborough; what steps, if any, have been taken to put the proposal into effect; and, if no steps have been taken, whether, having regard to the fact that the provision for secondary education in the county is below the average for the country, he proposes to take any action to ensure that the proposal will be carried out without any undue delay.

Mr. TREVELYAN: No proposals have yet been submitted, but I am communicating with the authority on the subject.

SCHOLARSHIPS AND FREE PLACES.

Mr. WELLS: 72.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the recommendation of the Departmental Committee of scholarships and free places in their Report issued in 1920, expressing the view that it was desirable that the financial responsibility of provision for free places should be transferred from these schools to the local education authorities, has been adopted; and, if not, is he prepared to adopt this recommendation?

Mr. TREVELYAN: As I informed the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr), in reply to a question on the 21st February, I think the time has come for reconsidering the provisions which govern the award of free places. Regard will be had to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee, including the particular recommendation referred to by the hon. Member.

BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (SCHOOL CHILDREN).

Mr. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 71.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will consider arranging for the free admission of school children who wish to visit the British Empire Exhibition at Wembley as members of their respective schools and in charge of a teacher?

Mr. TREVELYAN: I may refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on the 11th instant to my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Atholl Robertson).

Mr. COVE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of free railway fares?

Mr. TREVELYAN: That is another question to which I have given an answer previously.

BURNEY AIRSHIP SCHEME.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 77.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is able to give any approximate date
when the Government will arrive at a decision with reference to the Burney airship scheme?

Mr. LEACH: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Bedford on the 25th February.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are the Government in the meantime considering any alternative means of getting the mails to India?

Mr. LEACH: The whole matter is under the consideration of this committee.

Viscount CURZON: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that it is almost impossible for the authors of this scheme to hold this great commercial group together indefinitely, and will he give us an assurance that he will press on with this matter so as to get a decision at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. LEACH: Certainly.

PERPETUAL PENSIONS.

Mr. FOOT: 80.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the commutation of perpetual pensions in past years, any better terms have been secured for the Treasury than those upon which it is proposed to terminate the pension now being paid to Lord Rodney?

Mr. SNOWDEN: With the single exception of one case in 1891 the answer is in the negative.

Mr. FOOT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the House will have an opportunity of discussing the terms of commutation here in accordance with the notice which I have placed upon the Paper?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I understand that the only way in which this question can be raised is by a private Member making, or taking advantage of, some opportunity which may arise.

Mr. FOOT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the Treasury notice which has been issued, reference is made to the fact that the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer some years ago gave an undertaking that none of these pensions should be commuted without a decision of the House being taken?

Mr. SNOWDEN: That is so, and it is by virtue of that undertaking that this matter is being laid upon the Table of the House. There was no statutory obligation to do it.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is there any truth in the statement that the Government intend giving 21 years' purchase for this particular pension?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Those are the terms in which it is proposed to commute.

Mr. B. TURNER: Shall we have the opportunity as Members of the House of Commons of resisting publicity and voting against the payment of this extortionate sum of money?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I know of nothing to prevent hon. Members of this House protesting publicly.

Mr. TURNER: Can we vote?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The opportunities of dealing with the matter are limited in the way which I have described in the answer.

Mr. PRINGLE: Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider it a fulfilment of the undertaking given some years ago, referred to in the Minute, if my hon. Friend were allowed to raise this question after 11 o'clock?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I have already said that the hon. Member, or any other hon. Member who is interested in this matter, must use his wits to search out methods and take advantage of an opportunity.

Dr. CHAPPLE: Is this commutation final, or can it be stopped or modified?

Mr. SNOWDEN: It is subject to the leave of the Court of Chancery.

GERMAN REPARATION (RECOVERY) ACT.

Mr. PRINGLE: 81.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer during what period the German Government reimbursed German exporters of goods to this country by means of gold mark bonds for the charge under the German Reparation (Recovery) Act; whether such bonds were negotiable; and, if so, on what terms?

Mr. SNOWDEN: So far as I am aware payment to German exporters in bonds instead of paper marks commenced only on 17th November, when the Decree of 15th
November came into force. These bonds were long-term bonds and were only given in respect of exports the subject of contracts concluded before 17th November. As regards the last two parts of the question, there was nothing to prevent the exporter negotiating the bonds. I cannot say what terms he received. The new Federal Treasury Bonds which have been substituted for these old K bonds are redeemable in two years and should be negotiable on much better terms.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us for what term were the Bonds of which he speaks as "long term Bonds"?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Up to 10 years.

Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the first set of Bonds was not

STATEMENT showing the number and value of Motor Cars and Motor Car Parts (not exempt from duty) from Canada, delivered for home use and the approximate duty thereon in each of the years 1921, 1922 and 1923.


—
—
No.
Value on which duty was paid.
Amount of duty.





£
£


Motor Cars (not exempt from duty)
1921
491
117,079
26,024


1922
6,572
1,024,345
227,659


1923*
8,300
1,372,497
304,999


Motor Car Parts (not exempt from duty).
1921
—
69,198
15,377


1922
—
216,467
48,896


1923*
—
252,138
56,067


* As from 1st April, 1923, the figures relate to Great Britain and Northern Ireland only.

GRAMOPHONES (IMPORTS).

Mr. PRINGLE: 83.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of clockwork gramophone motors and also other gramophone parts imported during the years 1921, 1922, and 1923, and the amount of duty collected on the same?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The answer to this question involves a tabular statement of figures, which, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Statement showing the value and net amount of duty collected on parts of gramophones and phonographs (including motors) imported into the United Kingdom, and delivered for home consumption

exchangeable for the second set at 75 per cent. of its face value?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I could not say at the moment, but they were exchangeable upon conditions.

MOTOR-CARS AND PARTS (IMPORTS).

Mr. PRINGLE: 82.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number and value of motor-cars and motor-car parts imported from Canada during the years 1921, 1922, and 1923; and the approximate amount of duty collected on such imports?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The answer to this question involves a tabular statement of figures which, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

during each of the years 1921, 1922, and 1923:





Value.
Amount of duty.





£
£


1921
…
…
65,537
21,837


1922
…
…
97,750
32,578


1923*


156,019
52,000


* As from 1st April, 1923, the figures relate to Great Britain and Northern Ireland only.

TATE GALLERY (ADMISSION FEES REDUCED).

Mr. BLACK: 85.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that the attendance of the public at the Tate Gallery during 1923 was
50,000 fewer than in 1913, and that the annual cost of the gallery is about £15,000, he will, in view of the small receipts for admission and in order to popularise this national institution, make it free to the public every day of the week?

Mr. GRAHAM: The hon. Member has apparently overlooked the fact that, of a total decrease of 48,338, nearly 34,000 is attributable to reduced attendance on free days: but I am glad to be able to inform him that from 1st April next the admission fees at the Tate Gallery on the two paying days will be reduced from 1s. to 6d. so as to correspond with the fees at the National Gallery, Trafalgar Square. The question of abolishing the fees altogether in this case was not brought to my notice until the Estimates for 1924–5 had been closed, and I am afraid that it is not feasible to take any step in this direction at the moment, though I should like to give the matter further consideration during the year.

Mr. BLACK: Is the sixpence that is to be charged to be retained by the trustees for the purchase of new pictures, or is it going into the hands of the Treasury?

Mr. GRAHAM: I require notice of that question.

Mr. W. THORNE: Are all the Estimates for all the Departments now closed?

Mr. GRAHAM: I cannot vouch for all the Estimates, but the point was that this particular Estimate was closed, and the proposal I have made was the best that we could do.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: What were the total admissions for 1923?

Mr. GRAHAM: I could not say without notice.

SURPLUS WAR STORES.

Brigadier-General MAKINS: 89.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how much revenue has been derived from the sale of war stores in the current financial year; how much of these surplus war stores remain in the possession of the Government; what is their nature; and why there is a difficulty in disposing of them?

Mr. GRAHAM: The revenue derived from surplus property and war stores in
the hands of the Disposal and Liquidation Commission including raw materials on trading accounts during the current financial year is approximately £19,500,000. The value of surpluses remaining for sale is approximately £8,000,000. These include factory, etc., properties, locomotives, railway rolling stock, machinery, wool, small craft and miscellaneous materials. The sales of surpluses, including raw materials to date, amount to approximately £670,000,000, and the hon. and gallant Member will realise that having regard to the previous sales and the present state of trade the disposal of the surplus remaining at the present time is necessarily somewhat difficult. Every possible step is being taken to complete disposals.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. JOHN O'NEILL: 91.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Tereasury if he will authorise the payment of old age pensions by post?

Mr. GRAHAM: Payment of old age pensions by post could only be made by sending to the pensioner weekly a postal order which, unless paid into a bank account, would have to be taken to the post office to be cashed like the pension orders in the book now delivered yearly to the pensioner. The proposal would thus involve a very large increase in the cost of administration without any practical advantage to old age pensioners, and I am not prepared to adopt it.

Mr. O'NEILL: Would it not be possible, where people are frail and unable, as is often the case, to go to the post office to receive the money, to arrange by some means that the money is paid to them? What is the approximate cost of sending the pensions by postal order?

Mr. GRAHAM: I cannot say what the approximate cost would be, but as regards the people the hon. Member has in mind, there is now an arrangement which enables them to get the pension. What the hon. Member had in mind in his original question was a general scheme.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: 96.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the number of cattle bred and fed
in Nottinghamshire that have suffered from foot-and-mouth disease as compared with cattle imported to Nottinghamshire from Ireland?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Buxton): I regret that the information desired by the Noble Marquess is not available, and, in any event, I think it is very doubtful whether many of the farmers, on whose premises foot-and-mouth disease has occurred, would be aware of the origin of many of their cattle.

Mr. LOVERSEED: Would the right hon. Gentleman say how many recent cases of foot-and-mouth disease have broken out in Nottinghamshire.

Mr. BUXTON: "Recent" is a very vague word. There have been altogether in Nottinghamshire, since last August, 57 cases, involving over 2,100 animals.

HOUSING.

NET RENTS, LONDON.

Mr. ROBERT MORRISON: 98.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the rents charged by the London County Council for their post-War houses on the White Hart Lane Estate, Tottenham, are from 4s. 6d. to 5s. per week more than the rents charged by the Tottenham Council for houses of a similar type in the same locality and built at the same time; and whether this is in accordance with the rules laid down in the housing Regulations?

Mr. GREENWOOD: My right hon. Friend understands that the net rents charged by the London County Council on their White Hart Lane Estate, Tottenham, are on average about 3s. a week more than is charged for somewhat similar houses in the neighbourhood by the Tottenham Urban District Council. The London County Council are the owners of a large number of working-class houses in and around London, built partly before and partly after the War, and in fixing rents for their post-War houses on their various estates they have properly, under the regulations, had regard to the prevailing rents of the pre-War houses on those estates. The hon. Member must bear in mind that the Tottenham Urban District Council provide only for the needs
of their own area, but the London County Council provide for the whole of the Administrative County of London.

Mr. P. HARRIS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the rents, in both cases, are approved by the Ministry, and that any loss is borne, in both cases, out of the taxes by the Ministry of Health?

Mr. GREENWOOD: That is so.

Mr. MORRISON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there have been over 40 applications from local authorities in London and Greater London for reductions of rents of houses, and that they have been agreed to, and the London County Council has not taken any action?

Mr. GREENWOOD: That is not the responsibility of the Ministry of Health.

Miss LAWRENCE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the regulations of the London County Council with regard to the rents of their estates are based upon the instructions sent to them by the Ministry of Health?

WORKING-CLASS HOUSES.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: 99 and 100.
asked the Minister of Health (1) if he has formed any estimate of the number of working-class houses that should be replaced during the decade 1921–31 by reason of their having become unfit for human habitation; and, if so, what is the number and on what basis has it been estimated;
(2) if he has formed any estimate of the number of working-class houses that should be erected in the years 1921 to 1931 to meet the probable increase in the number of families during that decade; and, if so, what the number is and on what basis it has been estimated?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The question of what housing programme should be adopted is at present under consideration, and I would suggest that the hon. Member should reserve his point until my right hon. Friend is in a position to place the Government's proposals before the House.

EVICTION ORDEES, WEDNESBURY.

Mr. SHORT: 104.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that a number of families are to be evicted from houses situated in Darlaston Road, Wednesbury, this week-end; that the local council are unable to find them alternative accommodation;
and that the land, when cleared of the houses, is to be used for a bowling-ground; and will he introduce legislation to protect people from eviction where no alternative accommodation is provided?

Mr. GREENWOOD: My right hon. Friend's attention has not been previously drawn to this particular case. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which was given yesterday in reply to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Palmer).

Mr. SHORT: Does the hon. Gentleman intend to make further inquiries into this case with a view to preventing these evictions, and of ascertaining if the land is required for the purpose indicated in the question?

Mr. GREENWOOD: If the hon. Member will furnish us with the facts they will be looked into.

Mr. SHORT: What additional facts are required beyond those set out in the question on the Paper, namely, that a large number of families have been evicted for the purpose stated?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this case is only a sample of what is happening up and down the country; and what action does he intend to take to prevent evictions and suffering to families? As the hon. Gentleman is attached to the Ministry of Health and these evictions represent a first step towards creating ill-health, what is he going to do about it?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member's remarks should be addressed to hon. Members opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Gentleman's retort was rather inapt. I presume it refers to something which has been done outside this Chamber.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not a fact that it is the Act passed by hon. Members opposite which is responsible for the present evictions?

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not so understand the allusion.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I was referring to the action of certain hon. Members opposite in a Committee of the House.

Mr. SPEAKER: In that case, I think it is most undesirable to make references here to proceedings which are taking place upstairs.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

Mr. SPEAKER: I have made my observation on the matter.

METROPOLITAN ASYLUMS BOARD.

Mr. LANSBURY: 101.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Metropolitan Asylums Board are proposing to increase the salaries of the clerk and accountant to that body by £300 per annum, bringing their salaries up to £2,000 and £1,700, respectively; whether, in view of the heavy burdens on the ratepayers and taxpayers of the metropolis, he will, before assenting to these proposals, inquire as to the length of service, especially of the clerk; and what extra work is entailed by either of these gentlemen to warrant an extra payment of £300 a year each?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The considerations urged by my hon. Friend will be taken into account together with other relevant considerations in dealing with this application.

POOR LAW EXPENDITURE (WEST HAM).

Mr. W. THORNE: 103.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in the estimate of expenditure for the half-year ending Michaelmas, 1924, presented at the last meeting of the West Ham Board of Guardians, provision had to be made for a sum of £110,530, being interest and repayment of principal due on certain loans advanced by the Ministry, in addition to a sum of £80,125 due from the guardians to the Ministry for the same purpose at the end of the current month, and that, whilst continuing the present high rate of 4s. 6d. in the £ for Poor Law purposes only, application would have to be made for a further loan of £400,000, in addition to the sum of £1,000,000 already borrowed, in order to provide the guardians with sufficient funds far the performance of their statutory duties, including payment of relief to unemployed men and women; and will he, when submitting the case of the necessitous Poor Law areas to the
Cabinet for their consideration, draw particular attention to the serious position in which certain areas are placed owing to the debt which had been accumulated by the boards of guardians in those areas, acting on the advice of successive Governments to borrow money from the Ministry when the amounts obtainable from the rates have proved insufficient to meet the expenditure incurred in performing their statutory duties?

Mr. GREENWOOD: My right hon. Friend is aware of the general position as affecting the West Ham Board of Guardians. As regards the last part of the question, all the relevant factors were brought under review in considering the case of the areas to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is there any truth in the report which is being circulated that the Minister of Health submitted a Memorandum to the Government and that the Government turned it down?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member should place no reliance on rumours and reports that are circulated.

R.M.S. "ORDUNA."

Viscount CURZON: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have any statement to make with regard to the reported seizure of the R.M.S. "Orduna" and the arrest of two officers and six members of the crew; and whether the seizure is in accordance with the spirit and the letter of the Treaty recently signed but not yet ratified between the United States Government and the British Government?

Mr. PONSONBY: His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington has been instructed by telegraph to report on the seizure of the R.M.S. "Orduna." I do not feel able to express any opinion in regard to this matter pending the receipt of the reply.

MEMBERS' SALARIES.

SPEAKER'S ANNOUNCEMENT.

Mr. SMILLIE: I desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you are now in a position
to give a reply to the question raised some days ago as to the rule whereby the salaries of Members date from the taking of the Oath; and whether there is any possibility of the rule being modified?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am unable to give my countenance to the suggestion that Members should take the Oath elsewhere than here at the Table of the House, but I have arranged that, in the case of a General Election, Members after taking the Oath, shall be entitled to draw their salaries as from the date on which the Clerk of the Crown intimates to the Speaker that all the returns have been received by him, or, when Parliament assembles on a date on which all returns have not been so received, then the date on which Parliament assembles, in respect of all those Members who have then been returned, and in respect of Members who have not then been returned the date on which their return reaches the Office of the Clerk of the Crown.
In the case of bye-elections, Members shall draw their salaries as from the date on which the Member's return is certified by the Clerk of the Crown.
A Member who has not taken the Oath within six months of the return of his writ to the Clerk of the Crown shall not be entitled to claim any salary prior to the date of his taking the Oath.
This Order applies to Members elected to serve in the present Parliament.

Mr. SMILLIE: May I take it that this will be retrospective?

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am not quite certain that I apprehended what your ruling was, Mr. Speaker, on a matter, as I conceive it, of great constitutional importance. Do I understand that, under your ruling, a Member might draw salary for six months, without taking the oath of allegiance which is required of all Members of the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that is a correct interpretation of what I said. I have found the matter rather technical and complicated, and that accounts for the rather technical language used. There were several points which had to be guarded against. Perhaps the right hon. Member will read what I have carefully prepared.

Colonel GRETTON: Arising out of the statement which you have made, Mr. Speaker, may I ask respectfully whether, in laying down the rule you have just announced to the House, you have regarded the salaries as emoluments or as payments for services rendered as Members of Parliament?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have regarded the terms under which the "salaries," so-called, have been voted by the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. BALDWIN: Can the Deputy Leader of the House state what the business next week will be, and perhaps at the same time he will be good enough to explain, when he moves his Resolution suspending the Eleven o'Clock Rule, what necessity there is for such a course?

Mr. CLYNES: The business for next week will be:
Monday: Supplementary Estimates; Trade Facilities Bill—Committee.
Tuesday: Navy Estimates, 1924–25; Move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair; Votes A, 1 and 10 in Committee.
Wednesday: Supplementary Estimates—Committee and Report stages.
Thursday: Air Estimates, 1924–25—Committee; Ways and Means Resolution—Committee; Army Estimates, 1924–25—Report.

Mr. BALDWIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the necessity for putting down his Motion for the Suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule?

Mr. CLYNES: The necessity is that of getting on with more of the business than as yet we have been able to do. I think the late Prime Minister, from his presence in the House, will have observed that public business is somewhat in arrears, and we think it advisable to seek the co-operation of the two sides of the House in the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule, in order that certain matters should be got through to-night.

Mr. BALDWIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the most obvious course is to take all the time of the House, and not to keep the House sitting late?

Mr. CLYNES: If this particular course, often, indeed always, taken by preceding Governments for a long time past, does not adequately serve the purpose, we shall, of course, be compelled, however reluctantly, to seek to take the time of private Members.

Mr. BALDWIN: If the Motion should be carried, would the Deputy-Leader of the House tell us how far he proposes to proceed to-night?

Mr. CLYNES: Only with the Army Votes.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What Army Votes?

Mr. VIVIAN PHILLIPPS: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think it reasonable to ask the House to sit after eleven o'clock, when he is not prepared to take the available time on all sittings of the House?

Mr. CLYNES: I have always regarded work in this House after eleven o'clock as work at an unreasonable hour, but as the steps so far taken by the House collectively have prevented us getting ahead with business, we are driven, as other Governments have been driven, to move the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why the Government do not adopt the ordinary course, pursued by all their predecessors in similar circumstances, namely, of taking private Members' time up to the end of the financial year?

Mr. CLYNES: The records in this regard show that custom has varied, that on certain occasions the Eleven o'Clock Rule has been suspended for certain purposes, that on some occasions private Members' time has been taken, while on other occasions both courses have been followed. For the moment, we are trying the former alternative.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Why does the right hon. Gentleman choose this particular course in these particular circumstances?

Mr. CLYNES: I think it will be found that we are merely imitating the course taken by previous Governments.

Mr. MACPHERSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is actually proposed after 11 o'clock to take an
Amendment for the reduction of the Army by 150,000 men?

Mr. CLYNES: That is not intended.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that if so much time had not been spent over Supplementary Estimates, incurred by the late Government and their supporters, this course would not be necessary now?

Mr. PRINGLE: Arising out of the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has just given, is the House to understand that the Amendment reducing the British Army will not be taken to-night after 11 o'clock? It stands in the name of 15 of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters.

Mr. CLYNES: Our object in seeking the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule is primarily to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair.

Sir GRATTAN DOYLE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why, in the present instance, the Government persist in taking a course which is obviously against

the sense of the House, when, by adopting the other alternative, the House would be unanimously with them?

Mr. PRINGLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-night is merely for the purpose of getting Mr. Speaker out of the Chair?

HON. MEMBERS: He has said so.

Mr. PRINGLE: No, he has not.

Mr. CLYNES: Yes—and for Vote A and the Vote on Account.

Mr. MACPHERSON: May I ask whether the Amendment for the reduction of the Army by 150,000 men will, therefore, not be taken?

Mr. CLYNES: Yes, and I understand the numbers are included in Vote A.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Clynes.]

The House divided: Ayes, 207; Noes, 234.

Division No. 25.]
AYES.
[4.1 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Duncan, C.
Isaacs, G. A.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Dunnico, H.
Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Alstead, R.
Egan, W. H.
Jewson, Dorothea


Ammon, Charles George
Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Attlee, Major Clement R.
England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)


Ayles, W. H.
Finney, V. H.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Baker, W. J.
Foot, Isaac
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Banton, G.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Barclay, R. Noton
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)


Barnes, A.
Gavan-Duffy, Thomas
Kennedy, T.


Batey, Joseph
Gillett, George M.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Birkett, W. N.
Gosling, Harry
Kirkwood, D.


Black, J. W.
Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)
Lansbury, George


Bondfield, Margaret
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Law, A.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)


Briant, Frank
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lawson, John James


Broad, F. A.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Leach, W.


Bromfield, William
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lee, F.


Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Groves, T.
Lessing, E.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Grundy, T. W.
Linfield, F. C.


Buchanan, G.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Livingstone, A. M.


Buckie, J.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Loverseed, J. F.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lowth, T.


Cape, Thomas
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Lunn, William


Chapple, Dr. William A.
Hardie, George D.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Charleton, H. C.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
M'Entee, V. L.


Church, Major A. G.
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Mackinder, W.


Clarke, A.
Hastings, Somerville (Reading)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Climie, R.
Haycock, A. W.
Maden, H.


Cluse, W. S.
Hayday, Arthur
March, S.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Marley, James


Compton, Joseph
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)


Cove, W. G.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Maxton, James


Crittall, V. G.
Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfield)
Middleton, G.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hillary, A. E.
Mills, J. E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hirst, G. H.
Montague, Frederick


Dickson, T.
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Morris, R. H.


Dodds, S. R.
Hodges, Frank
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hoffman, P. C.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Dukes, C.
Hudson, J. H.
Mosley, Oswald


Muir, John W.
Sexton, James
Tout, W. J.


Murray, Robert
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Naylor, T. E.
Sherwood, George Henry
Turner, Ben


Nichol, Robert
Shinwell, Emanuel
Turner-Samuels, M.


Nixon, H.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Viant, S. P.


O'Grady, Captain James
Simpson, J. Hope
Wallhead, Richard C.


O'Neill, John Joseph
Sitch, Charles H.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Paling, W.
Smillie, Robert
Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)


Palmer, E. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Warne, G. H.


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Perry, S. F.
Snell, Harry
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.


Ponsonby, Arthur
Spence, R.
Weir, L. M.


Potts, John S.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Westwood, J.


Purcell, A. A.
Spero, Dr. G. E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Raffety, F. W.
Stamford, T. W.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Raynes, W. R.
Stephen, Campbell
Whiteley, W.


Richards, R.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Sullivan, J.
Williams, Lt.-Col. T. S. B. (Kennington)


Ritson, J.
Sunlight, J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Romeril, H. G.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Rose, Frank H.
Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)
Windsor, Walter


Royce, William Stapleton
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)
Wintringham, Margaret


Royle, C.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Wright, W.


Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Thurtle, E.
Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)


Scrymgeour, E.
Tillett, Benjamin



Scurr, John
Tinker, John Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)
Toole, J.
Mr. Spoor and Mr. Frederick Hall.


NOES.


Ackroyd, T. R.
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry Page
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Alexander, Brg.-Gen. Sir W. (Glas, C.)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hughes, Collingwood


Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.
Duckworth, John
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Dunn, J. Freeman
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)


Beckett, Sir Gervase
Ednam, Viscount
Kay, Sir R. Newbald


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Elvedon, Viscount
Keens, T.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Falconer, J.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Lamb, J. Q.


Berry, Sir George
Ferguson, H.
Laverack, F. J.


Betterton, Henry B.
FitzRoy, Capt. Rt. Hon. Edward A.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Forestier-Walker, L.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lord, Walter Greaves-


Blundell, F. N.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lorimer, H. D.


Bonwick, A.
Gates, Percy
Lumley, L. R.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
McCrae, Sir George


Briscoe, Captain Richard George
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Gilbert, James Daniel
MacDonald, R.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macfadyen, E.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Gray, Frank (Oxford)
McLean, Major A.


Bullock, Captain M.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Burman, J. B.
Gretton, Colonel John
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Grigg, Lieut.-Col. Sir Edward W. M.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James L.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Mansel, Sir Courtenay


Cassels, J. D.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Harbord, Arthur
Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Harland, A.
Meller, R. J.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hartington, Marquess of
Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Harvey, C. M. B. (Aberd'n & Kincardne)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm, W.)
Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)
Mitchell R. M. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Chapman, Sir S.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Clarry, Reginald George
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Mond, H.


Clayton, G. C.
Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A. C. (Honiton)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hobhouse, A. L.
Morse, W. E.


Cope, Major William
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Nesbitt, Robert C.


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert




Ormsby Gore, Hon. William
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Owen, Major G.
Russell-Wells, Sir S. (London Univ.)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Pennefather, Sir John
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston on-Hull)


Penny, Frederick George
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Savery, S. S.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Wells, S. R.


Philipson, Mabel
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.


Phillipps, Vivian
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)


Pielou, D. P.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Williams, Maj. A. S. (Kent, Sevenoaks)


Pilkington, R. R.
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)
Willison, H.


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Pringle, W. M. R.
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Raine, W.
Starmer, Sir Charles
Wise, Sir Fredric


Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford
Steel, Samuel Strang
Wolmer, Viscount


Rathbone, Hugh R.
Stranger, Innes Harold
Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.


Rea, W. Russell
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Rees, Sir Beddoe
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.


Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Sutcliffe, T.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Rentoul, G. S.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Wragg, Herbert


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Tattersall, J. L.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chrtsy)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)



Robertson, T. A.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ropner, Major L.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)
Commander Eyres Monsell and


Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Thornton, Maxwell R.
Colonel Gibbs.


Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.

EVICTION ORDERS, WEDNESBURY.

Mr. SHORT: I beg to ask permission to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the failure of the Ministry of Health to inquire into the eviction of a large number of families in Wednesbury."

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot accept that Motion under Standing Order No. 10.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Major John Jacob Astor, commonly called Major the hon. John Jacob Astor, County of Kent (Dover Division).

BILLS PRESENTED.

CONVEYANCING (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL,

"to amend the Law of Conveyancing in Scotland," presented by Mr. F. THOMSON; supported by Sir Robert Horne and Lieut.-Colonel Sir John Gilmour; to be large number of families in Wednesbury." 26th March, and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

REGISTRATION OF THEATRICAL EMPLOYERS (No. 2) BILL,

"to provide for the registration of employers of theatrical performers; and for purposes incidental thereto," presented by Mr. BOWERMAN; supported by Mr. Collins, Mr. John Jones, Mr. William
Thorne, and Mr. Sexton; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 21st March, and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION (FERRIES) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Representation of the People Act (1918) Amendment Bill): Mr. Arthur Henderson, Junr. (Cardiff); and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Secretary Henderson.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1924–25.

Order for Committee read.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Stephen Walsh): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
In putting forward the Estimates for the Army this year, I would point out to the House that the general form of these Estimates had been prepared before I received the seals of office and represent almost wholly the policy of my predecessors. I would say, however, that I have reviewed the Estimates in the state that they were left by the last Government, and I ask the House to vote £45,000,000 for the Army with confidence, not alone because they represent the policy of my predecessors, but because I am satisfied that they have been framed with due regard to efficiency and economy and the needs of the country. The Estimates, with my memorandum which accompanied them, have been in the hands of Members for a week. The memorandum covers broadly the main questions of military policy and administration, and all that is necessary is to touch upon some of the more important points.

REDUCTIONS.

The Estimates last year were £52,000,000. This year they are £45,000,000. The total number of British troops to be voted this year is 152,592 against 154,536 last year, a reduction of 2,000 men. Thus a very large monetary saving has been made at the expense of a very small reduction of man power. The 2,000 men by which the Army is reduced represent entirely administrative economies. They do not affect what might be called the fighting strength of the Army. It has been maintained concurrently with this substantial saving in cost. The £7,000,000 saving is effected under two heads. In the first place, the terminal charges resulting from the War, which last year were £3,500,000, are this year only just over £1,000,000. Ultimately, this head of expenditure will disappear. The more important of these charges are due to the reinstatement of property and the provision
for various war claims, compensation, and so on. Among the terminal war charges that are now almost disappearing, I may mention the issue of medals, for which the charges are now quite small. In the Estimates this year the provision is only £3,400. I am glad to be able to assure the House that the War Office has now distributed over 13,000,000 medals, and we anticpate that there remain only about 300,000 still to be distributed. Every endeavour has been made to distribute these, but difficulties have been found in locating addresses, although steps have been taken, with the co-operation of the newspapers editors throughout the country and a cinematograph company, whose efforts I desire gratefully to acknowledge, to advertise the proper method by which the men can obtain their medals.

The second cause of the reduction in the Estimates is the reduction of 4½ million pounds on the current charges of the Army. This is partly due to the reduction of 2,000 men in the administrative services, to which I have already referred, and partly to other items to which I shall refer later. It would not be out of place here to compare the value we are getting for military expenditure to-day with that obtained before the War. In 1914 the Regular British troops numbered 174,000, and the total of the Army Estimates was £28,800,000. The figures for this year are, respectively, 152,000 and £43,900,000. There are two factors which raise the cost of the Army to-day. The first is the price of all stores and supplies, which are nearly twice what they were in 1914, and, secondly, the fact that the rate of pay in the Army to-day is more than twice what it was in 1914. The relations between the size of the Army and its cost compares not unfavourably with the size and cost of the Army before the War.

We have had difficulties in recruiting, but there are signs that that it improving, and the feared shortage of candidates for commissions has been inquired into by a Committee set up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans), and presided over by Lord Haldane. I need not go into the cause of the necessity for the reduction of the five cavalry regiments and the 22 infantry battalions disbanded by the last Government. That was a necessary contribution of the Army
to the financial security of the nation. We, as a Government, realise that this condition cannot be divorced from the question of military security, and vice versa. Here I would remind the House of the general principles which govern the size of the Army and justify its existence. In the first place, it is necessary to find garrisons for our stations abroad. In the second place, it is necessary to have at hand an expeditionary force which can be sent at short notice wherever it may be required. If the disappearance of the German menace has naturally reacted upon the size of the Army, it must not be forgotten that we have possessions at great distances: these cannot be left defenceless. These considerations make the Army really a nonparty question. That is why I have found no difficulty in putting forward the Estimates which are now before the House, and which have been prepared in accordance with the announcement made to Parliament by my predecessor last June, to the effect that while administrative economies would be continued, no policy of further reduction in the fighting arms was in contemplation. While, naturally, any reductions would only be made by myself with the utmost reluctance, it is, of course, impossible for me to foresee the future or to tie the hands of future Governments. Governments must be left free to reconsider the state of the Army in the event of any serious and important change in the international situation. I hope, before I sit down, to indicate to the House certain lines on which administrative economies are possible in the Army.

MILITARY RESPONSIBILITIES.

The right hon. Gentleman the late Under-Secretary of State, in introducing the Estimates last year, pointed out to the House that our military responsibilities had not diminished since the War. I am happy to say that, at any rate in one area, things are brighter than they were when he then spoke. The Treaty has been signed with Turkey, and that has enabled us to release the troops from Constantinople. Here I should like to pay the tribute—which this Government is as anxious to pay as was the last—to the admirable manner in which the British Army upheld its traditions in its difficult
task when quartered in Constantinople, and to the ability with which their commander, Sir Charles Harington, presided over the Allied Force. His tact and personality, supported by the conduct of all ranks, contributed in the highest degree to the fact that we were able peaceably to come to an agreement with the Turks, and to leave the British name in Constantinople higher than it has stood for years.

The difficulties that we have to contend against in Egypt, Iraq, India and the East generally are well known to the House. Whether we like it or not, the difficulties are there; and will not be solved by ignoring them. Some of the problems are quite new, and though they may not warrant an increase of the Army, they cannot in the present state—I say nothing of the future—warrant its decrease. It is the duty of the General Staff to consider possible military eventualities with which the country may be faced in every area, and I am glad to say that I have every confidence in the temperate judgment of the General Staff with whom I have the pleasure of working. The problems of defence are not merely matters of the General Staff of the Army. In almost every case they affect the two other fighting services. This brings me to the work of the new Committee of the Chiefs of Staff, which was set up by the last Government and is proving a great success. It saves a considerable amount of duplication of work. Military questions which require submission to the Committee of Imperial Defence can now be submitted, after they have been surveyed from the point both of the Admiralty and of the Air Force, with a view to securing a unified defence policy. The Committee has met a considerable, number of times, and has discussed and made recommendations to the Committee of Imperial Defence on such subjects as co-operative training between the Army and the Air Force, the relation of the Army to problems of air defence, and various defence problems that affect the services jointly in various parts of the world.

AIE DEFENCE.

As I have mentioned the steps taken to secure co-operation between the three Services, I think the House would like to know what progress has been made in securing co-operation between the Army
and the Air Force for home defence. This, as the House is aware, is one of the chief and most difficult problems with which we have to deal. In March, 1922, the late Cabinet decided that the Air Ministry was responsible for the defence of the United Kingdom against air raids. In December, 1922, the Committee of Imperial Defence approved the arrangements made between the War Office and Air Ministry, that the War Office should remain responsible for raising, maintaining, and controlling, both in peace and war, the ground troops which are required to assist the Air Force in the air defence of the United Kingdom, and for the design and provision of equipment for the anti-aircraft defences on the ground. These troops were to be commanded by a military officer responsible, as regards operations, to an Air officer, who is himself responsible to the Air Ministry. During the winter of 1922–23 a joint committee of the General Staff and Air Staff drew up a general scheme for the defence of certain portions of England. The allotment of ground forces in this scheme was reduced to the minimum limits compatible with reasonable security.

The War Office is responsible for supplying ground defence formations proportionate to the air formations employed, and the ground troops required to meet the scheme are estimated at some 22,000, which represents an increase of about 19,000 to the formations now authorised. It is intended to raise these troops as part of the Territorial Army. The annual financial cost of this increase when the scheme is complete has been estimated at £600,000, but the initial cost is still not determined. I have indicated some of the military commitments abroad which the War Office has to envisage, and I have outlined the steps taken to secure co-operation with the Air Force for defence at home.

EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.

There remains the question of the maintenance of an Expeditionary Force which can be sent wherever it is required. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester, when Secretary of State for War, explained the limits within which we were able to mobilise such a force. I am glad to say during the past two years, thanks to the settlement in Ireland, as well as to the withdrawal of troops from
Constantinople and the East, we are in a better position than we were. One main source of difficulty is the fact that the Army Reserve is now only 85,000 as against 145,000 in 1914. The shortage in the Army Reserve is due to the fact that since the War a large number of men have been serving on special short engagements without any liability for reserve service after leaving the Colours. These short terms of enlistment have now been abolished, as the House knows, and the resumption of normal terms of engagement will soon result in an improvement in the position of the Army Reserve.

Our second great difficulty is to supply the necessary technical personnel on mobilisation. To meet this requirement a Supplementary Reserve, consisting principally of technical classes, has been inaugurated. The sum of £500,000 has been set aside to provide this Reserve, which will consist of men who will be organised into technical units and trained in such, and of others who will require no technical training because their duties will be practically the same in war as they are in peace. The question of the Supplementary Reserve of technical personnel is really bound up with the whole question of the development of the Army. The tendency of the last War was to mechanicalise the Army, to use machinery for the purpose of saving the lives of men, but we cannot mechanicalise an Army without having mechanics, and it is naturally difficult to attract the highly-skilled men into the Army if they can earn high wages in private employment. That being so, steps have been taken to establish at Chepstow a technical school for training our own boys into skilled mechanics. There are only 220 boys at Chepstow, but there will shortly be 550.

Perhaps I can put the necessity for developing the technical side of the Army more clearly if I describe what we have been able to do in the mechanicalisation of an Artillery Brigade. In the spring of last year the 9th Brigade, Royal Field Artillery, at Deepcut were equipped with dragons, as artillery tractors are called. After a short period of training in the use of these dragons, the Brigade marched in one day from Deepcut, Aldershot, to Larkhill, Salisbury Plain, a distance of over 60 miles. In the autumn the Brigade took part in manœuvres near Petworth, and the equipment was found to be very satisfactory.
It is the present intention to equip all Army Field Artillery Brigades (i.e., non-divisional brigades) with these tractors, and we have already built sufficient dragons to equip a 2nd Royal Field Artillery Brigade. This year we are also equipping four medium batteries with a similar type of dragon (medium battery—6-inch howitzers and 60 pounders). I can assure the House tank research is proceeding satisfactorily.

RESEARCH DEPARTMENT.

Not only do we require technical personnel if we are going to substitute as far as possible machine power for man power, but such a policy requires a highly efficient Research Department. This is a subject in which I and my colleagues have been personally deeply interested. I have recently inspected, accompanied by my two colleagues, with the assistance of the Master-General of the Ordnance and some of his staff, the Research Department at Woolwich, and I can assure the House that it need have no doubt that we have one of the finest Research Departments it is possible to organise, and we saw very striking examples of how large sums of money can be saved by expending small sums on mechanical, electrical and scientific work. Probably one of the best ways of reducing Army Estimates is to spend more upon research.

TERRITORIAL ARMY.

I now come to the Territorial Army. The principal facts connected with the Territorial Army can be gathered from page 11 of my memorandum. The actual strength of the Territorial Army has been increased during the past year by 5,944 officers and men. We are still yet under strength, and I would make an earnest appeal to employers to give all facilities to their employés to join the Territorial Army, and to employés to give up some of their leisure to bringing this force, which made such a name for itself during the War, to its full strength and an even higher state of efficiency. I would like here to pay a tribute to the extraordinary devotion which all responsible for raising and organising the Territorial Army have shown during the past year. A great deal of this work is not only given gratuitously, but often at the cost of much leisure and even money on the part of individuals
throughout the country, and it is only that spirit which enables the Territorial Army to develop so economically, and, at the same time, so efficiently.
That really is put forward in the spirit, first of all, of not only recognising how wonderful the Territorial Army does its duty to the nation, but I am asking the House and the nation to recognise that, after all, they are for defensive purposes only, and upon such an Army as that in the last resort, the well-being of the whole nation depends. It is not in any bellicose or war-like spirit that this has been done, because there are none who detest war more than hon. Members and hon. and gallant Members who have been through the War. This is simply being put forward in the peaceful spirit in which the Territorial Army has been organised—in a spirit of defence and in no other sense. Perhaps the most interesting development in the Territorial Force is its growing connection with the Air Force. It is necessary to increase establishment in order to provide for certain anti-aircraft brigades to assist in home defence. The strength of these brigades will ultimately come to 22,000 officers and men. They will be recruited and organised by the County Associations. Money has been taken for this purpose, but difficult questions of organisation remain still to be solved before a definite scheme can be promulgated. Schemes are now under consideration by the War Office.

TRAINING.

I have tried to sketch the military commitments which we have to meet, the size of the Army with which we have to meet them, and the machines with which the Army fights. I now come to the method of training. As the House knows, the War Office has recently acquired the site at Catterick as a large training ground in the North of England. It was necessary to find some large training ground to replace the 30,000 acres we lost in Ireland. I hope to be able shortly to visit Catterick in order to get a better idea of where the troops will actually do their training. The quiet period through which the Army has passed for the last 12 months has enabled the General Staff to concentrate on training not only in the Home Commands but abroad. The principle upon which we are proceeding is to establish a doctrine of training in the first place, and for this purpose a
Director of Military Training has been appointed, who will supervise the production of the Training Manuals. By the recent appointment of an Inspector of Artillery, it will BE possible to test the progress made in the absorption by the Army of this training doctrine so far as the gunnery is concerned, and the closest touch is kept between the training authorities at the War Office and the General Officers Commanding who are responsible for training the troops.

The return of troops from Ireland to their peace stations enabled the Home Army, for the first time since the War, to carry out a thorough year's training during 1923. Owing to the necessity of concentrating attention on junior leadership, training during 1923 was limited to training of infantry brigades in co-operation with other arms. During 1924 training up to divisional training will be undertaken. There will be no Army manœuvres, but a short period of inter-divisional operations between 2nd and 3rd Divisions is proposed.

There is another aspect of training on which the War Office lays great stress, and that is not the military training of the men but training which will to some extent fit a soldier to earn his living properly as a civilian on leaving the colours. The soldier is showing a great interest in the progress of education. Last October there were 1,360 candidates for the 1st Class Certificate of Education, and 69 per cent. were successful in whole or in part. That means, I hope, that we are getting a higher type of intelligence in the Army. This general education is carried on during the man's service; towards the end of his service opportunity is given for vocational training or training for a trade. Vocational training started officially on the 1st April, 1923, and is carried on at two Army centres (Hounslow and Catterick) as well as in classes in commands. The intention is to give practical training at a trade, or at some form of agriculture during the last few months of their service to well-conducted men of a good standard of education who are about to join the Army Reserve, and to long service men about to take their pension. It is intended to train some 5,000 of the 15,000 men who leave the colours every year. These figures do not include the Army in India, which has its own scheme
of vocational training. In addition, opportunities are made for a soldier during the whole of his service to undergo manual training with his unit or in command classes with a view to acquiring elementary knowledge of a trade. During the last three months of their service, men are normally struck off duty for an intensive course at these local centres. The most promising are struck off for six months and sent to one of the Army centres for practical work on a larger scale.

HEALTH AND DISCIPLINE.

I have shown that the War Office is taking a great deal of trouble with the training of the Army both in its technical and military aspect and in its more general educational aspect. This progress in training is reflected in and made possible by the health of the troops and the excellent state of discipline. The health of the troops continues to be most satisfactory, particularly as regards avoidable diseases, which shows a marked decrease during the year, in spite of the fact that we have saved money on medical services. The high state of discipline in the Army has enabled us to close detention barracks in Devonport and Colchester. The Provost Staff Corps has been greatly reduced, and the cost of maintaining the detention barracks I have mentioned has been eliminated. In order to ensure that the officers on courts-martial have best legal advice and the men who are brought before those courts can be sure of the fairest possible trial, a new Military and Air Force Department has been inaugurated in the Judge Advocate-General's Office, consisting of nine members, whose duties are to advise and assist officers responsible for conducting courts-martial, and in cases where the accused is not represented to advise as to the necessary steps to safeguard his interests.

ADMINISTRATIVE ECONOMIES.

It would take too long to explain to the House the various developments and economies that have taken place within the administrative services of the War Office, and Members will find some reference to changes and reorganisation of the Ordnance Services on page 12 of the memorandum that I have circulated. I desire, however, to indicate some savings that the Quartermaster-General has been able, amongst others, to effect.
On the conveyance of troops and stores by land we have saved some £220,000. There is a reduction of nearly £1,000,000 on sea transport on account of the withdrawal from Constantinople and certain other non-recurring commitments. On provisions, forage and petrol, under Vote 7, there is a reduction approximately of over £1,000,000, so that I can assure the House that every member of Council has been most careful to reduce administrative expenses to the last penny consistently with the proper carrying out of the duties with which he is charged. There are, in particular, however, three areas of administration in which the House naturally rightly takes great interest and to which I would like to refer in greater detail. The first is the question of Army pay; the second the size of staffs, both in the War Office and elsewhere; and the third is the question of the system of accounts and administration of the Army.

Apart from any question of the future rates of pay of the Army, an automatic reduction in the pay of existing officers, based on cost of living, takes place on 1st July, 1924. When the new scales of pay, half-pay and retired pay were introduced in 1919 for officers of the Navy, Army and Air Force, it was laid down that 80 per cent. of the new rates was given as basic and 20 per cent. as a variable element subject to revision according to the rise or fall in the cost of living. The first revision is due in 1924, with subsequent revisions at intervals of three years. A comparison of the cost of living in 1919 and at the present time indicates that the reduction will be between 5 per cent. and 6 per cent. The exact percentage will be announced in a few days. The reduction represents the proportionate fall in the cost of living applied to 20 per cent. only of the pay, and the same applies to half-pay and retired pay. The whole 20 per cent. would only disappear if the cost of living fell to the pre-War figure. I repeat—as it is a matter on which some misunderstanding seems to exist—that this reduction in the rates for officers (not men), which takes place automatically under the Regulations issued in 1919, is quite independent of any decision that may be taken as to new rates of pay of officers under the recommendations of the Anderson Committee.

The House is aware that a Committee under Lord Weir some time ago reported to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the question of possible administrative economies. The House has expressed interest in this report, but so far it has not been possible to present the report to Parliament, because it deals, amongst other things, with secret subjects, such as the size of the Reserves in the event of war which the House would not wish to be made public. Very careful consideration has been given to the recommendations of the Weir Committee. Broadly speaking, the Weir Committee recognises that the increase of staff is due to the work still connected with the War, increased correspondence from the general public, enhanced importance of mechanical factors in war and the dispersion of the Army on the Rhine and elsewhere. They came to the broad conclusion that any detailed recommendation for reduction in staff under existing organisation would be of little value. Their opinion was that economy and efficiency could only be achieved by changes in organisation of a far-reaching nature.

As a result, however, of the Weir Committee certain definite reductions have been made. £57,000 has been saved on the reduction in existing Schools of Instruction, including the abolition of the School of Military Administration, and the amalgamation of the Cavalry and Artillery Wings of the School of Equitation. Reduction in travelling expenses has been effected by regulating the meetings of the Selection Board to which all General Officers Commanding-in-Chief are called at certain intervals. In the Medical Service, reductions of over £100,000 have been made, and the regimental establishment of the R.A.M.C. is again being reviewed.

ACCOUNTANCY.

Before coming to the War Office Staff I should like to refer to the Lawrence Committee which was set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, whose report has now been made public. I welcome the interest shown in many quarters of the House in the new system of Accounts and Estimates which we introduced for the Army in 1919, and in the report of the Committee under General Sir Herbert Lawrence which has been recently circulated. Perhaps I may
explain that the essence of the new system is to present our Estimates and Accounts in a form which is designed to show, for the information both of Parliament and of the officer administering each establishment, the full cost of the establishment, including stores consumed and liabilities incurred, and not merely one cash analysis—under such subject headings as pay, food, clothing, etc.—for the whole Army. I recognise that the principle of the new system, which, for want of a better term, is known as cost accounting, has much to commend it, but I must take time to consider the matter, especially as to the extent to which the system should be carried in detail, as well as the important question of its effect on the methods of administration within the Army. In the meantime, I shall be interested to listen to any views which Members of this House may desire on the subject.

I should, however, like to remove some misconception which has arisen in connection with the relation between the duties of the Royal Army Pay Corps and the new Corps of Military Accountants. The War Office has been considering for some time past the question of amalgamating these two corps, and if this is done it should do away with a certain amount of duplication which now exists; but I should like to make clear—as indeed the Lawrence Committee recognises—that the duties of the two corps are to a large extent different. The new Corps of Military Accountants, which consists of officers and men with previous accounting experience, is charged with the duty of preparing accounts in the new form, while the primary duty of the Royal Army Pay Corps is to disburse money strictly in accordance with the Regulations, etc., which govern entitlement in varying conditions. This latter duty will always remain distinct and important, whatever change may be made in the form in which the expenditure is recorded in the accounts.

WAR OFFICE STAFF.

I now come to the question of the size and cost of the War Office staff. The comparison of cost is between £1,240,800, as now shown in the Vote, or £927,700, if the figures in the Vote were arranged as in 1914. The War Office then cost £457,000, or approximately one-half. The difference
can be explained by reference, first to cost, secondly to numbers, and thirdly to the volume of work. The pay of the Civil Service and of the Army has been raised, and properly raised, by previous Governments. If the Anderson recommendations are accepted, there will be no change in Civil Service rates, and some not inappreciable savings on Army pay, provided corresponding reductions are made in Navy and Air Force rates. This report is under the consideration of the Government. The bonus is common to the whole Civil Service, and varies directly with the cost of living. Boy and girl labour is practically abolished, with consequential expense.

Every class of the Civil Service staff employed in the War Office has been reorganised in conjunction with the Treasury, and fresh establishments have been approved within the last three years. The senior civil staff is at its pre-War numbers. The more extended use of disabled ex-soldiers has inevitably led to the employment of more men. The lower grades of the military departments are being examined by a Committee under Major-General Sir Arnold Sillem, which is investigating the work of every branch and the work of each individual in the branch. This is a task of considerable magnitude, but good progress is being made.

The intake of correspondence is still 60 per cent. greater than in 1914; the staff is 50 per cent larger. The reduction or augmentation of the rank and file establishment of the Army does not involve precisely commensurate variations in the size of the administrative staff of the War Office. The character of the work remains the same; the problems to be considered do not change; whether a few thousand men, more or less, have to be administered makes relatively little difference. The Army is a much more complex machine since the War, and, because of its smaller size, greater attention has to be directed to securing its efficiency. New weapons (guns of higher calibre, Lewis guns, etc.), tanks, smoke, anti-gas defence, improved signalling communications, wireless telegraphy, the mechanicalisation of transport and artillery; hygiene and sanitation; a higher standard of education and vocational training; co-operation with the Air Force; improvement of barracks and
married quarters on which work was necessarily suspended during the War; the creation of another training centre at Catterick to replace the Curragh; the reorganisation of the Territorial Army as a second line; the provision of ground troops for anti-aircraft defence—all these involve work which the War Office did not have in hand in 1914. The military problems in a reconstituted world need the most careful study. The League of Nations and other international agreements, and the fact that war is now in three dimensions, make greater demands on the General Staff. Above all, the fact that the War Office came into touch with almost every household during the War has led to a vast correspondence with individuals, who often approach the Department personally, and through organisations, as well as through their M.P.'s. Claims for compensation, alleged arrears of pay, effects, medals, rewards, lead to appeals of many kinds.

I thank the House for listening patiently to what must inevitably be a bare record of facts. The truth is that for the moment I am in the position of the chairman of the board of directors of a big business from whom the shareholders are entitled to hear the true history of the business during the past year. I have, therefore, not indulged in any nights of rhetoric, but, relying on the fact that a substantial saving has been effected without loss of efficiency, I confidently ask the House to vote the necessary Supply.

Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The whole House will join with me in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the report which he has made to-day as chairman of this very, very important company. It has been a business-like statement in explanation of the Memorandum which he kindly gave to Members in advance. It has been a business-like statement which has helped us to understand the present position. Moreover, as he said he is following the policy of his predecessors. I have the less difficulty in giving him those compliments which he has a right to expect from a former Secretary of State for War. There are a few things I would like to say to the right hon. Gentleman, and a few questions I would like to ask him. He claims in his speech that these Estimates show a saving of £7,000,000 on the
current year's Estimates, and he compares in his paper the Estimates for the last three years, namely, this year, the previous year and the year before that. But that is not a very good comparison, if I may say so, because in the year 1922–3 he compares with an estimate of £62,300,000. He will remember that the expenditure of that year was about £12,000,000 lower than the Estimate, so that the real comparison is not with the Estimate of £62,000,000; it ought to be with the expenditure of about £50,000,000. That is not important for to-day's purposes, perhaps, except that it is somewhat misleading as it is put here.
What is more important, is to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman, if we can, how much he expects of the current year's Estimate to be actually spent. He claims a saving of £7,000,000 on the Estimate, and that is true, but I think there was, so far as I can see, a very considerable sum under-spent in the current year, and although he has hot got the final figures for the year, he may be able to say presently whether it is expected to be £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 under the Estimate. With regard to the £7,000,000, he has explained that £2,500,000 of that is terminal charges. We know these terminal charges. No Secretary of State has much control over them; they are a horrible legacy of the War which swells the Estimates without his design. That leaves £4,500,000. How is that made up? He has stated that there are 2,800 men fewer now on the Strength than previously, and I shall have a word to say about that in a moment. Then he said, £1,000,000 has been saved on transport, as I understand. That is, of course, because the troops are no longer in Constantinople. That is lucky, but it must not be treated as a necessarily permanent reduction of the Army Estimates, because so long as men are from time to time sent overseas the transport falls to be charged on the Estimates.
5.0 P.M.
It must not be considered to be necessarily a permanent reduction, and the same applies to another million he has saved in food and forage, which is due to the reduction in the prices of food and forage. With regard to the men, the right hon. Gentleman says that there are 2,000—his memorandum said 2,800—less upon the
Strength now, that they have saved in the ancillary services, and not a single fighting unit has been reduced in strength. I remember when I was in the position which he now occupies it fell to my lot to reduce a large number of battalions, but in order to minimise as far as I could the loss in fighting strength, we added 64 bayonets per battalion, and that really added to the fighting strength of each battalion without any additional overhead charges, because the establishment charges were the same with the 64 extra men as they were without the 64 men. Have these men been lost? Are they still there?
The actual strength is 5,500 below establishment, and the right hon. Gentleman explained that we had had some difficulty in recruiting If these difficulties arise because there may have been a misunderstanding in the minds of those who normally come into the Army that their pay was to be cut down after they had joined, surely it ought to be very easy to remove such a misapprehension, because it must be quite clear that the War Office has not now and never has had any intention of altering existing contracts. If a man joins the Army at a given rate of pay, that contract will be kept with him during the whole of his enlisted service, or for the time for which he has enlisted. It should be quite easy to make that clear. Is that the only reason? It seems odd that, at a time when unemployment is so bad, we should be short of the numbers which the right hon. Gentleman has to deplore. I think we were recruiting at the rate of 40,000 a year, which compares with something like 30,000 a year pre-War. If the right hon. Gentleman can do so, he might give us the figures, and let us know why the deficiency exists, because it is a quite important matter. The right hon. Gentleman said that the position to-day with regard to the Expeditionary Force was a great deal better than two years ago. I am glad that it is so. It is natural that it should be so, because one of the chief reasons of the Expeditionary Force being small in number and slow in mobilization was that we had not got either the necessary reserve to fill up the ranks or the technical reserves, and the whole of our efforts were being bent towards supplying those two deficiencies.
The Reserve to-day is 92,000. That is a great deal better than it was in the time with which he was making the comparison. The right hon. Gentleman is starting a Supplementary Reserve. He might reconsider the name. Of all the horrible names I think I ever heard of, the Supplementary Reserve is the worst. You cannot expect to get men to join what is called a Supplementary Reserve. I do not know whether he has already begun to recruit for the Supplementary Reserve, or whether that still remains to be done. I think it is wise to make it into two classes. He is more likely to get the technical men who are required if he does not have to put all of them through the ranks. Some of them, as he pointed out, are not there for their military knowledge, but for their technical and trained knowledge, and I think it is wise to have one class of Reserves which does not require to go through a military training. In order to fill vacancies for technical men, the right hon. Gentleman is continuing the technical schools for boys. I hope he will find that he succeeds. I do not know if he has looked into the cost of it. I do not know if he realises what it will cost the State for each technically trained man he puts into the Army. When I looked into the cost, it staggered me, and I did not feel justified in starting boys' technical training. I was never satisfied that that was the cheapest method of getting the technical men required.
I am glad the right hon. Gentleman said he approved of the Report of the Haldane Committee. I understand, therefore, that he will put that Report into operation. I gather that that was what was intended. I understand that, notwithstanding that, there is some fear that the cadets will not be forthcoming, and I suggest he should look over something of which I was guilty and see whether it has affected young men joining as cadets. On the recommendation of the Geddes Committee, we put up the fees to be paid at Sandhurst and Woolwich, and I was never certain what the effect of that would be. It may well be that the cadets are not coming forward because you are charging an extra £50 or £100 a year. If that be so, it is dear money. It would be far better to reduce the fees and get the cadets. I am glad
the right hon. Gentleman said that the vocational training for men about to leave the Army was being developed, and I hope he will continue to develop it. He said it was started in April, 1923. I think he has got his date wrong, because I was conscious of it being in force while I was at the War Office. It is important that we should not go on turning men out of the Army on to the labour market as unskilled men. We ought, while they are in the Service, to furnish them with a training. I have not the slightest doubt that that is the least we can do for the men we ask to join the Army. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will arrange with the trade unions that the training these men receive while in the Army shall count. If these men are to be trained only to find out afterwards that they cannot join trade unions, it would not be fair to the men. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, as he has special means of doing so, will take steps to get trade union recognition for these men.
In regard to the Lawrence Committee Report, I confess I was not quite satisfied with what the right hon. Gentleman said. He seemed to be a little timid about it. That was a Committee which was set up by me. I will tell the House why I set it up, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will pursue this work. When I was at the War Office, the accounting and finance services, namely, the Finance Department, the Army Pay Corps, and the Corps of Military Accountants were costing—I speak from memory—£1,900,000 a year. That was an enormous sum, and I felt certain that if it was looked into a large reduction could be made. I succeeded in making a reduction of £100,000 a year by amalgamating the work of the Record Office with the Pay Office. I got that Committee set up, and the result of that Committee is now the subject of a While Paper. The present expenditure compared to the £1,900,000, as far as I can make out, is estimated to be £828,000, so already there is a saving of about £1,100,000 in the finance services, using that term in the broad sense, of the War Office. That is the cost of four battalions. This Report suggests that certain further steps should be taken, and it says that £240,000 could be saved if these steps are taken. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that this
is the cost of an infantry battalion, and it is up to him to see that that saving is made in order that there shall not be any pressure to cut off any infantry battalion. The right hon. Gentleman says that that will take time. It has taken time to get this Report, and it has taken time to get these reductions, and he will find that it will require a good deal of energy on his part to get this carried through, but he ought to get it carried through. This Report was the report of one of the strongest Committees ever set up. It was a combination of military, military administrative, financial and accounting experts.

Mr. WALSH: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will allow me to explain. The right hon Gentleman knows that the Report was published only on the 23rd October last year, and I would like to show the House that there has been no delay of any kind on my part. I need not say to Members of this House that a very considerable unheaval took place between October and January. As soon as I got to the Department and knew this matter was rousing a good deal of very proper attention, the Army Council got together, and on the very first occasion they agreed to its application. The one point on which I do feel a little doubt is, as to whether the result of the Committee's finding could be applied to the command of a unit in the same way as it can be applied, and successfully applied, to stated establishments. That is a point I will go into. That is, perhaps, one of the reasons why I have not been quite so direct in my references as I would otherwise have been.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I did not wish to suggest for a moment that there was any delay on the part of the right hon. Gentleman; I was only a little afraid that he was going to be timid as to the future. What I want him to do in the future, whenever he can—I do not want it rushed; it must be very carefully considered. It is no use his trying to do it as Secretary of State and finding that his Department or his military officers are lagging behind; they must all go along together on the same front—what I want him to do is to get them along with him and see that it is done, because I believe there is quite a considerable amount of money in it. At present the system is a dual one. There is a system of Vote
Heads and of so-called cost accounting. There are two sets of people doing that, each being paid, and, when it is done, the two systems do not agree, and a third set of people is employed in reconciling the work of the two first. That is going on at this moment, and the sooner it is corrected the better, because it is a sheer waste of money. I find myself in the very happy position of being in agreement with all the rest of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and, therefore, I need not detain the House any longer, but I hope that these reforms, the time for which is now ripe, will fall to his credit in the course of this year.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I feel that, as one who introduced probably the greatest War Estimate the world has ever known, I may be forgiven if I address a few remarks to the House on this occasion. First of all, I desire to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the excellence of his speech. It seemed to me to be solid and comprehensive, and, if there was no great vein of pacifism passing through it, there was certainly no vein of defiance. The whole gist of it went to show that there is a strong and ardent attempt at the present moment, under his administration at the War Office, to secure an efficient Army, a strong Army, and a capable Army. The right hon. Gentleman himself, at the beginning of his remarks, rather deplored the fact that recruiting for that Army was not as good as it might be. I am in many ways not surprised, and I will merely give one reason. In a word, people in this country seem at times to forget that we are entirely dependent upon a voluntary Army. If you have a conscripted Army you can dress it in sackcloth and ashes, but if you are appealing to the young men of the country to come forward and join this ancient profession of arms, you have to appeal to them through sentiment and tradition, and not altogether through their pockets. I have, on more than one occasion, with my colleagues from Scotland, appealed to the War Office once again to refurnish the old Highland regiments with the full regimental equipment. I am glad to see that something has already been done in that direction, but not only does it apply to the Highlands of Scotland, but to Wales, and in the old days it would have applied to Ireland. I am convinced that, for a voluntary Army, the War Office cannot
afford to despise what are very often regarded as small things, but which, really, are the great things in many minds in this country.
My right hon. Friend, who has just sat down, has referred to the Haldane Report, and I would reinforce the plea he has put forward that the Secretary of State should put that Report in its entirety into force. During the time I was at the War Office I took a great interest in the education of cadets at Sandhurst, and in the entrance of those cadets to Sandhurst. I am convinced that the reason for the paucity in the number of cadets going to Sandhurst at present is twofold. Firstly, there has been a remarkable uncertainty as to the Army as a career, and, secondly, there is the increase in the fees of young cadets going to Sandhurst. I believe that the clever young cadet, not only from the public school but from the secondary school, should be given every available facility to enter Sandhurst and the other military colleges, and I was much pleased to see that the other day there was a question by an old Eton master, who is a most respected Member of this Houses—the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville)—asking that not only should the claims of public schoolboys from Eton, Winchester, Rugby and other schools be considered but also the claims of able and competent young men from the secondary schools of this country. I am convinced that, if the Secretary of State would develop that line of entrance into Sandhurst, he would not only be adding to the competence and ability of the Army but he would be taking away from the minds of many men the idea that Sandhurst is limited to a certain class of men.
I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend pay a great tribute to General Harington. I am sure that the whole House will agree with that tribute, in connection with which he made it perfectly clear that the Army, as he understands it, is not out for defiance, but for defence, not only of these shores, but of the whole of our Empire. He gave us some very interesting new information about the mechanicalisation of the Army. I am sure it is an axiom, after the results of the last War has been considered, that we should have a maximum of firing power with a minimum exposure of human life—a doctrine which I remember my right hon.
Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Major-General Seely) advocating in this House. But, if we have had a higher degree of mechanicalisation in the Army, I am glad to think that the other side of the Army, the human side, is not neglected. One of the great curses of the Army of the old days was that one would often find, in the villages of this country, old soldiers who had had a long career in the Army, who were strong, able-bodied men, but who had had to leave the Army without knowing any trade or occupation to which they could apply themselves after they had ceased to serve in the Army. We are whole-heartedly in support of the new system of vocational training. It is an excellent thing, and doubly excellent when you begin by attracting nice young lads into the technical schools. Not only is that a great benefit to the Army itself, but it is a great benefit to the industry of the country when these men have served their time and their country.
I heartily endorse the appeal my right hon. Friend has made to employers of labour in connection with the recruitment of the Territorial Force. It is not necessary in this House to pay any compliments to that great voluntary Force, which came forward at the beginning of the War with such tremendous credit to itself, to the country, and to the voluntary spirit. But, if there is to be good recruitment for the Territorial Force, everything possible must be done to make the burden of service in that Force as easy as possible—I do not mean easy in the sense of depriving them of adequate training, but that, when bounties are applied for, and they are expected, they should be promptly paid. I had a case of that kind in my own constituency, but I am glad to think that the moment I applied to the War Office to have these bounties paid, my letter was courteously acknowledged, and the bounties were actually paid. It should not, however, be left to a Member of Parliament to apply for an inducement of that kind which is put forward in order to attract men into the Territorial Force.
With regard to the question of the discipline and health of the Army, I remember what a tremendous fight we had during the War to improve the health of the Army, and I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say to-day that the health of the Army was never better than it is now. I understand that that is equally
true of the discipline of the Army. During the War we had many Debates here upon the harshness of the discipline, and at that time, instead of the old prison system, with great chains for men who had committed offences against Army law, we established a system of detention barracks. I am glad now to recognise the efficacy of that step, because my right hon. Friend has told us to-day that, owing to the excellent discipline of the Army, it has been possible for two of those barracks to be set aside. I desire to say a word also on the question of the graves of soldiers in the various theatres of war. I am sure it was a very great satisfaction to us to see the other day the report of the right hon. Gentleman who is Prime Minister of Australia, and whose visit here we were all delighted to have. He went to visit the graves in Gallipoli, and his report was a highly satisfactory one from the point of view of the reverent attention paid to those graves. I do, however, receive, and I know that many other Members of this House receive, a great many complaints that adequate tombstones are not put at the head of the graves, and I would like my right hon. Friend to assure himself that everything that is humanly possible is being done in this connection.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans) mentioned the matter of Army pay. I am one of those who believe that in the old days the Army was too badly paid. It was nothing less than a crime to ask men, at the beginning of the War, to endure, on a miserable pittance, all the dangers and all the discomforts of a terrible war, and I feel proud that I had a little to do in increasing the pay of those gallant men. If economies are to be effected, I am sure they ought to be effected upon ancillary services, and in other directions, but not upon the pay of the soldier. If a man in civil life contracts to enter any employment for a fixed wage, every trade union in the country would be down upon his employers if they attempted to deprive him of that wage, and the same thing applies to the British Army. If men have been enlisted for a certain period at a certain rate of pay, then, in my judgment, they are entitled to receive that pay and to have that contract fulfilled. I understand that in the course of the Debate other questions may be raised,
and particularly from this corner of the House, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to reassure us upon the few points I have now raised.

Lieut.-Colonel CAMPION: May I also, very humbly pay my tribute to the very clear, straightforward statement we have had from the right hon. Gentleman? Reference has been made in the three speeches we have heard to the shortage of officers and to the Report of the Haldane Committee, of which I was a member. I should like very strongly to endorse the plea which has been put up for a reduction of the fees at Sandhurst and Woolwich. I believe that is distinctly important. But what I believe is still more important is that boys contemplating joining the Army, and their parents, should be reasonably satisfied that there is a certainty of a career open to them when they get into the Army. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can too often reassure us by making the statement that, as far as one can reasonably foresee matters, a boy joining the Army now and taking a commission has a reasonable certainty of a continued career. The Haldane Committee had to consider two things principally, first of all in what way they could widen the area from which they can draw candidates for commissions, and, secondly, whether they could secure a proportion, at any rate, of the best brains for the Army, because it is unquestioned that though one wants a number of individuals with the quality of leadership and perhaps not brilliance of brains, still one wants in the Army as brilliant and as good brains as in any other profession. In that connection I was very much impressed with the immense and cordial co-operation which we got from the Commandants of Woolwich, Sandhurst, and Chatham, from the heads of the colleges at the big universities and from the headmasters of public schools. One and all, they were out to help and to make suggestions to try to make our task easy.
I believe the adoption of the suggestions made by this Committee will go a long way to remedy the existing shortage in the supply of officers. Frankly it does away with the crammer and with the Army class in our public schools. Some people may think that is a pity. I am inclined to think it is an advantage. Not only do you do away with the Army class
in the public schools, but it results in the boys staying at school till the age of 18 or getting the real advantage of public school life which is only got by getting to the head of the school and being in a position of responsibility. In the present time and in the old days a boy has had to make up his mind in the early days of his public school life, or his father has, as to whether he will go into the Army or not. If he decides to go in for the Army he has to go in for a special form of education, and the result has been that a great many fathers and sons have hesitated to make up their minds at so early an age. But under this scheme a boy will not have to make up his mind until later on, until he has passed a qualifying test, namely, getting a certificate under the Joint Board of the Oxford and Cambridge University or something equivalent to that. I am sure that qualifying test, a simple one as it is now, will result in opening the area for the supply of these boys as candidates for commissions, not only so that they may be drawn from the great public schools, but they will come from council schools and so on.
I was impressed by a question which was asked by heads of colleges at a visit we made to Oxford. We were asking what could be done in order to get applications for commissions from first and second-class men in our universities. One or two of the heads asked, "Do you want first-class men at examinations or do you want first-class men?" The answer is an obvious one. What the Army wants is first-class men, and I think there is a proviso in our suggestions which is a very valuable one, that in the qualifying examination for Sandhurst or Woolwich, or in the examination for the competition from the universities, one of the tests shall be the school or university record of the individual and that a fairly large percentage of marks should be given for the record. In that way, while you open the commissioned ranks of the Army to a larger number of schools and over a wider area, you are also safeguarding yourselves that you may secure the right sort of man, the first-class man, and not merely the man who is first class at examinations. I understand our suggestions are to be taken practically in their entirety. Does that include the granting of commissions through the
Territorial Army, because that is one of the suggestions? I very much hope it does, because I am sure if commissions are granted through the Territorial Army it will go a long way to solve one of the principal difficulties of the Territorial Army at present, which is the supply of young officers.
The right hon. Gentleman has alluded to the fact that the Territorial Army is still considerably under establishment and that establishment is a somewhat low figure. May I make one or two suggestions with regard to what may help towards increasing the strength of the Territorial Army and bringing it more nearly up to establishment? The first is to draw his attention to the permanent staff. I have nothing but praise for the permanent staff. It is very first class, but the allotment is considerably smaller than it was before the War. Those men have a great deal more work to do. They have a great deal of administrative work which they have to undertake, and it really wants a very first-class man. A year or so before the War the old plan of drawing sergeant-instructors from the colour-sergeants in the Army was done away with and permanent sergeant-instructors in the Territorial Army were supplied from the ordinary sergeant rank of the Regular Army. I am sure it would go a long way to help the Territorial Army—indeed there are a great many other arguments which may be used about this—if we could return to that system of not alloting sergeant-instructors to the Territorial Army under the rank of second-class warrant officers.
Also I should very much like to see some attention paid to the Territorial county associations. They exist primarily, I think, for two reasons. The first is in order that they may be the means of dealing with expansion in time of mobilisation—in time of war—and for that their preservation is absolutely essential. The second is in order that you may bring the county in closer touch with Territorial units. As far as that is concerned I am afraid the system has very largely failed. Associations vary in different counties. In some cases they are very good, but in too many cases membership of a Territorial County Association is apparently thought to consist in going to meetings of the
association or of the general purposes committee and passing or refusing applications sent up from different units. Every commanding officer of every unit in the Territorial Army would undoubtedly find it much simpler from his own point of view if he did not have to serve two masters. It entails a certain amount of duplication and there is no question that the administration could be carried on without the Territorial Association, but if only we can persuade these associations that their duty consists in taking individually a greater interest in their different units and if we can, through those associations, establish local recruiting committees—civilian committees—in the different districts, I am sure we can go a very long way to do away with the present shortage in establishment. Of course, the officers do their best, but, after all, they are rather suspect of selling their own goods, and what they want is the assistance and the closer touch of members of the county association, if that can be carried out. I only wanted to make these few observations, which I hope may be of some assistance.

RANKER OFFICERS.

Captain BERKELEY: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That", to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
in the opinion of this House, professional Ranker Officers of the Army should receive equal treatment as regards retired pay or pension.
I should like to ask the indulgence of the House if I go somewhat carefully into the whole question involved. It is an important question which means a great deal to the body of men whose cause I am pleading, and if the House is to arrive at a just decision on the matter it will be necessary to make a somewhat detailed examination of how the state of affairs of which we complain has arisen. This grievance of the Army pensioner ranker officer affects some 2,500 persons, who have, I submit, considerable claims upon the goodwill of the State. There is more than one question of principle involved in the matter. There is, for instance, the question how far the State, in dealing with those who have at the least risked their lives and at the worst incurred disabilities in its service, ought to rely upon a strict and literal interpretation
of the regulations that created the contract of service to the detriment of one class of men while, under regulations creating the contract of service with a similar class of men performing identical duties, a far more generous scale of provision is made.
The second principle is perhaps even more momentous. It is a question how far a Government which has been pledged by its head, specifically, not merely as a passing expression of opinion, but in the name of the whole party which he leads, to remedy a particular abuse and, in consequence, has received considerable support at the poll—how far such a leader is acting in a manner consistent with the traditions of public life in this country in repudiating that pledge and receding from the undertaking which he gave.
The case of the Army pensioner ranker officer has arisen in this manner. In 1914 there was great need for experienced people to come forward and take commissions. A large number of serving warrant officers and non-commissioned officers were offered commissions, and provision was made for these men under a Pay Warrant of 1914, amended by a subsequent Army Order in 1919, by which, on demobilisation, they received retired pay at a minimum of £150 a year. It is not the case of these men that comes before the House to-day, but it is necessary to refer to ranker officers of that class for the purpose of comparing their position with the status of the Army pensioner ranker officers, on whose behalf I solicit the interest of the House. Those I have described were serving-soldiers at the time. At the same time ex-Regular rankers—warrant officers and non-commissioned officers—were encouraged by the recruiting authorities and the War Office—indeed it is not too much to say that they were besought by the recruiting authorities—to apply for commissions.
The men who constitute the Army pensioner ranker officers fell into four classes. First, there were those who had been discharged to pension on having completed their service prior to the outbreak of the War. In regard to them it must be pointed out that many of them had only completed their term of service during the preceding year, and their case
is well-nigh impossible to distinguish from the large number of serving rankers who benefited from the scheme to which I first made reference, who were just on the point of completing their service or had actually proceeded on leave preliminary to discharge. That is class 1.
Secondly, there were those who after completing their service, as in the case of the first class, instead of being absorbed into civil life, had continued their military service by taking commissions in the Territorial Force, in the Special Reserve, or in the forces of the Dominions, and continued to hold their commissions at the outbreak of war. These officers, therefore, at the outbreak of the War were still actually borne on the effective strength of units of the Imperial Forces. Their case was even stronger than the case of the first class. It may be taken that of the 2,500 Army pensioner ranker-officers these two classes comprise 2,000.
In the third place, there were those who at the time of the outbreak of war had completed the necessary 18 years' qualifying service to entitle them to a pension, and were serving on Regular Army engagements as warrant or non-commissioned officer instructors in the Territorial Force, and on the permanent staff of the Territorial Force. Subsequent to the outbreak of war they were commissioned into the Territorial Force. I submit that with regard to these officers it is practically impossible to distinguish between their case and the case of the serving regular warrant and non-commissioned officers, for nothing, except the requirements of the Territorial Force, prevented these officers from rejoining their units, from which they were only seconded, and taking commissions, if they wished to take commissions, in the same manner as any other serving regular soldier at the time. They were still themselves serving regular soldiers, but for some reason which has never been explained, as far as I know, the War Office drew a line between this class of serving soldier and other classes of serving soldiers, and decided that in their case they must be discharged to pension and granted temporary commissions. That laid the foundation for the whole complicated imbroglio which has resulted in the years that followed.
In the fourth place, there was that class which had completed the 18 years' service necessary to qualify them for
pension and were promoted in the field to temporary commissions. These men, who had never broken their service, and were still serving soldiers, were promoted—let the House note the date—prior to 7th May, 1918, on which date a special Order was passed to which I shall make reference later. The men in these two latter classes number 500 or 600, and the four classes constitute the Army pensioner ranker officers who are appealing to the House to-day.
It may be convenient here to make a brief financial comparison between the status of the regular serving soldier who took a regular commission and the Army pensioner ranker officer, while serving and at the time of demobilisation. The regular ranker officer drew a higher rate of pay, and as a set-off against that, the temporary officer, the Army pensioner ranker officer, drew his pre-War pension, which amounted to something between £36 and £41 a year. The regular ranker officer received an outfit allowance of £150, while the temporary officer received only £50. As a result of this, the scale of pay was slightly in favour of the regular ranker. On demobilisation, both received gratuities, the balance in the case of gratuities being in favour of the temporary officer to an extent varying between £50 and £300, according to length of service and rank. I think that is a perfectly fair and accurate statement of the financial position of the two classes of men up to the time of demobilisation, but as from demobilisation a very striking difference is to be noticed.
After demobilisation the average pension drawn by the army pensioner ranker officer was £75 a year as compared with a minimum of £150 a year retired pay granted in the case of the regular ranker officer who had been given a regular commission. That is a very striking difference and it is made the more striking by the fact that in order to bring about an equalisation in their favour, the army pensioner ranker officers are willing, and they have always said that they are willing, to bring in for the purpose of adjustment any excess of gratuity on demobilisation to be allowed as a set-off against their arrears of retired pay. That is the financial case.
It is necessary now to deal with financial objections to remedying this inequality. The War Office case is that the army
pensioner ranker officers have received what they contracted to receive. I shall submit a general proposition as to how far the State ought to enforce such a contract, having regard to all the circumstances, but before I do so there are one or two facts, very important facts, bearing upon the whole case which the House should have before it and which take away to a great extent, if not entirely, the force of the War Office contention. The first fact is that on 7th May, 1918, there was published Army Order 159 of that year. That Army Order provided for the granting of precisely the same temporary commissions to serving warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the regular army. The whole basis of the War Office case is temporary as distinguished from regular permanent commissions. On that day provision was made for the issue of temporary commissions to serving regular soldiers. In the case of these temporary commissions it was provided by the Army Order that the recipients should be entitled to the benefits of Article 572 (a) of the Pay Warrant of 1914, which allowed retired pay in lieu of pension. That is to say, it was provided that in the case of men with 15 years' or more service promoted to temporary commissions—those were the only ones in that Order entitled to retired pay instead of lump-sum gratuities—they were to obtain the retired pay precisely on the same rate as rankers promoted to regular commissions.
Let the House observe the anomaly created by this Army Order. Serving soldiers seconded for instructional duties to the Territorial Force at the time of the outbreak of war were discharged to pension and granted temporary commissions, and they had no claim to retired pay. Serving soldiers promoted to temporary commissions in the field prior to the 7th May were also discharged to pension before they got their temporary commission. It was a condition precedent to getting their commission that they took their discharge to pension. Therefore they had no claim to retired pay. Precisely the same class of ranker under the Order of 1918 was granted a temporary commission with the right to retired pay. In his case he was not discharged to pension as a condition precedent to the grant of the commission. What possible justification can there be for a differentiation of this character?
6.0 P.M.
Another fact of importance is that the War Office has already departed from its attitude with regard to the contracts in the case of officers who, subsequent to the Army Order of 1918 received temporary commissions as quartermasters. That is an even stronger argument in favour of the case I am putting forward to-day. These quartermasters on demobilisation were actually granted the reassessed pensions of warrant officers and non-commissioned officers and continued to draw them whilst, protesting against the injustice of the decision. They have continued to draw them until within the last year. The War Office has consistently maintained that quartermasters did not come within the scope of Army Order 159, and then recently the War Office has revised its decision and granted the retired pay to these quartermasters. That is a very astonishing anomaly.
There is a further factor that is equally astonishing. Naval pensioners (Marines) who took temporary commissions in the Army under precisely the same conditions as Army pensioners. Yet in the case of the Naval pensioners the Board of Admiralty has again recently secured Treasury approval, not for Army rates of retired pay but for Naval rates of retired pay which are considerably higher, in the case of Marines who served in the Army as temporary officers, and that, notwithstanding the fact, that these Naval pensioners, throughout their service in the Army, drew their pre-War pensions, and received the gratuities on the higher scale on demobilisation. Will the House of Commons acquiesce in such widely different treatment in the case of persons who performed identical services as temporary officers of the Army, merely because in one case one Department invoked the Treasury and obtained the Treasury sanction, and in another case another Departmeent is unwilling to invoke the Treasury?
The War Office issued recently a statement in this matter, stating that its action was logical, and that the pensioners cannot have it both ways. There is little logic in the state of affairs which I have been describing, and if anyone is getting it both ways, it does not seem to be the ranker officer pensioners. They are in a cleft stick. When it suits the War Office to treat them as officers it does so, and when it suits them to treat them as war
rant officers or non-commissioned officers it does so. For instance, when the Army pensioner ranker officer asks for retired pay the War Office says, "No, you are a warrant officer or a non-commissioned officer and you cannot have it. You must be satisfied with your warrant officer or non-commissioned officer pension." They even go to the extent of writing to distinguished officers who have commanded brigades in the field as "Mr." or "Sergeant." They refuse to accept their signatures on the life certificates of pensioners. But when the Army pensioner comes forward and says: "If I am a warrant officer or a non-commissioned officer, treat me as such. I have got the Military Cross, and the Military Cross entitles the non-commissioned or the warrant officer to an additional pension of 6d. a day," the War Office replies, "No, you are an officer."
Why, when one reads all these things, or discovers them by investigation, if they were not so serious, and if they did not make the blood of any man who has served in the Army boil with rage he would laugh at them as something which might be expected in a comic opera. These examples could be much multiplied in many directions, but I may summarise briefly the status of all the various Army pensioner ex-officers. You have got marines among these ranker officers drawing a minimum of £250 and £300 a year. You have got Army permanent ranker officers, who were commissioned in the Great War, drawing a minimum of £150 a year. You have got Indian Army pensioner ranker officers drawing £150 a year minimum.

Mr. WALSH: That is not correct. The Indian Army officer is drawing on exactly the same lines as the British officer.

Captain BERKELEY: My information is that the Army permanent ranker officer, commissioned for service in the Great War, draws a minimum of £150, and that the Indian Army pensioner ranker officer also draws a minimum of £150.

Mr. WALSH: The person who was holding a temporary commission in the Indian Army is drawing exactly the same as the person who was holding a temporary commission in the British Army.

Captain BERKELEY: I am sorry if I have been obtuse, but that is precisely what I intended to convey. Then you
have Army temporary quartermasters, commissioned after 7th May, 1918, also drawing a minimum of £150 a year. Then you have the man whose case I am pressing to-day, the Army pensioner ranker officer, who is drawing an average of £75 a year. May I give an illustration from the sister service. In the case of pensioners who took temporary commissions in the Navy, particularly in the case of ranker officers in the Royal Marines, there has been no distinction whatever. They were all entitled to retired pay on a far more generous scale than that allowed to the Regular Army ex-rankers whose standard we are asking for these men. It becomes really astonishing in the case of the Naval Division. Then you had, side by side, fighting in France under the command of general headquarters in France, but paid by the Board of Admiralty, pensioners who had come back and taken commissions, naval pensioners and Army pensioners.
A case came to my notice only to-day, which is a striking example and which I may briefly explain. A sergeant-major of the Scots Guards rejoined his battalion on the outbreak of War. On the 19th September, 1914, he was posted to a commission and put in command of a company in the Royal Naval Division. He had, in his company, a quartermaster-sergeant. This quartermaster-sergeant was a retired naval pensioner. More than a year later the quartermaster-sergeant was also commissioned. On demobilisation the quartermaster-sergeant drew retired pay of £268 a year and the ex-sergeant-major of the Scots Guards, who had served very gallantly with a company under his command, in the Naval Division, draws a pension of only £75 a year. White Papers or not, what can be said in defence of that?
The War Office contends that the Army pensioner ranker officer has got what he contracted to receive, and it has even gone to the extent of saying that he has got no legitimate grievance. I characterise that as a mean and inequitable contention. How did this ever become a question of contract as we know contract in the civil courts of this country? There was never any negotiation between the parties. No such thing took place. The facts were that in a period of dire national necessity there was no time for bargaining or arguing, and I am
sure that the House will think that it would have shown a great want of patriotism on the part of rankers if they had stopped to argue and wrangle about terms, instead of doing what they did and hastening back to the Colours and taking the great part which they did in training the new Army. Far above these legal niceties, which the War Office brings forward to-day, there is this overriding fact that in a national emergency a national call was being sounded by every statesman in the land, and there was an implied promise that no one class of the men who came forward should be treated with less generosity than any other class. On these general grounds I submit that it is unworthy of the greatness of this country to rely on the strict letter of regulations laid down in these circumstances, and imparting so invidious a distinction.
I wish now to make one or two brief observations as to the specific liability undertaken by the present Government to deal with this case. At the General Election the Army pensioner ranker officers issued to all Members of this House a manifesto or questionnaire setting out four propositions, and I have very little doubt that most Members of this House gave some kind of reply to that. A considerable number of the occupants of the Treasury Bench pledged themselves, for instance, the Lord Privy Seal, the Postmaster-General, the Attorney-General, the Minister of Labour and many others. I need not go through the whole list, it is unnecessary to disinter the individual pledges given by Ministers or by my hon. Friends who constitute the Party in Office, because one who is qualified to speak in the name of all spoke in the name of all, and this is what he said:
I am much obliged by your letter with enclosed questionnaire. You can depend on the Labour party doing everything it possibly can in the House of Commons to carry out the four principles in your questionnaire, with which both they and I are in hearty agreement.
That was signed by the Prime Minister. The first of the four points was, whether the professional ranker officers ought not to receive equal terms as regards retired pay. The second was that the Army pensioner ranker officers were not given retired pay at the end
of the War but were relegated to their former status for pensions, averaging £75 a year. The third asked whether this was not an anomaly; and the fourth asked whether, if elected, the candidate would not support any Measure in this House to remove that anomaly. There is very little room for misunderstanding in a questionnaire so simple in its terms. The Prime Minister, in a letter to the Secretary of the Glamorganshire Group of Army Pensioner Ranker Officers, sought to explain away the circumstances in which this pledge was given. As I understand the letter, he says that he misunderstood the case. No doubt the same explanation would be offered again. I will ask the House to accept no explanation. This is not the first time the Prime Minister has given a specific pledge on this question, and promised to deal with this grievance. There was a letter sent to him last June by Captain McNaught Davis. On 14th June the present Prime Minister wrote:
DEAR SIR,—I am in receipt of your letter of the 11th instant. We have been interested in the subject all along, and will continue fighting for this until something is done.
That again is signed by the Prime Minister. If the traditions of English public life are to be maintained, the word of a leader, given on behalf of his party at an election as a result of which he may find himself—in this case he has found himself—governing the country, must be his bond. If he gives it in circumstances of error, it must still be his bond. I hope that the House will forgive so junior a Member saying that there is a profound responsibility upon the leaders of great parties in the State to weigh well what they say, and if they give a pledge, specific, unequivocal in its terms, with ample time for consideration or review, the pledge must be given with the fullest sense of the obligation to implement it if that leader and his party are returned to power.
One concluding word as to the White Paper. It is not a particularly novel document. I understand that it has received far more attention from the Press than its merits entitle it to, because it is not a new document Apart from the finance, it is, as to the merits of the case, only a reprint with a few textual emendations. It is a reprint of a memorandum issued by the War Office
last November, in reply to the efforts made by Sir Arthur Holbrook, whose work for these ranker officers entitles him to the thanks of the country. It was in reply to Sir Arthur Holbrook's efforts that these rather addle-headed arguments were advanced. They were available to the Prime Minister, and if he made his pledge with the sense of responsibility with which he ought to have made it, he knew of the existence of that document before he made his statement on 3rd December.
This White Paper is issued as an extenuation of the circumstances in which the Prime Minister's pledge was given. The Prime Minister and his Ministers have given us to understand that when they came to office they found a new state of affairs, something they could not have been expected to know before. They caused it to be believed in the country that they had been misled by the Army Pensioner Ranker Officers' Association. I lay stress, therefore, on the fact that this White Paper reveals nothing new, nothing that has not been published in the Press, if the Press cared to publish it at the time. It was sent to Members of Parliament, and it was available to Members of Parliament and to any man, woman or child in the country who choose to write to the War Office and make an inquiry about the case of these officers. An hon. Friend reminds me that it was published in "Truth." That is publicity indeed. As to the remainder of the White Paper, from paragraph 13 onwards—the preceding parts are merely a reprint—I would point out that it makes an important admission. It estimates that the financial effect of meeting these demands would be a gradually diminishing charge of £175,000 a year. For this admission we are extremely grateful; it places beyond all doubt what is the financial liability involved.
But there is a most astonishing attempt to import prejudice into the matter by an action that I, in my inexperience, had never dreamed of associating with an official Government publication. In the paragraph which deals with the finance—I cannot imagine for what reason—there is stated the aggregate sum of payments spread over a term of years. We are given two figures; we are given the annual charge and the capital value. Both those figures the House ought to have before it disposes
of this Amendment. The cost is £175,000 a year, or, capitalised, a sum of £1,750,000. We -accept the figures entirely. That the aggregate payments spread over a term of years total £3,000,000 is a statement that could have been made only for the purpose of getting it taken up by the anti-waste Press. Really there should be limits to the manner in which the case against granting this claim is manipulated.
In the days when I practised at the Bar, there was—I am sure all members of the Bar will agree—always a wholesome rule that the Crown, whilst bringing out all relevant matters, never pressed unfairly for convictions. It is improper for the Crown to press points of this kind, which are really unfair points to make and only create prejudice in the minds of persons who have not the opportunity of analysing figures for themselves. As to the statements in the following paragraphs—I think they are numbers 15 and 16—with regard to possible claims that may be made by this person or that person, I beg the House to put them completely out of its mind. What the House has to decide is whether, taking all the circumstances into account, these men have a legitimate case for redress. That is the only point. So I shall leave the destruction of this extremely vulnerable document to later speakers. I will just make one reference to the last paragraph, because it seems to mo to call for unstinting condemnation from all Members of the House. I believe that when hon. Members understand the purport of that paragraph, they will accord it that condemnation. Let me quote the concluding words;
The identical conditions consist merely of service side by side,
Let the House observe that word "merely." Then the documents proceeds:
but the War Office cannot admit the proposition that officers and men of the permanent regular Army, and officers and men engaged for the duration of the War under an entirely different contract of the service, should receive identical financial treatment as regards their gratuities and pensions, simply because they fought together in the War.
I will make no comment on the rather curious and invidious distinction which that phrase appears to draw between regular soldiers and temporary soldiers.
It is something we can leave for the country to consider. But I am bound to point out that the statement in that paragraph is a mischievous travesty of the facts and of the proposition put forward. The proposition is not that officers and men engaged for the duration of the War generally should receive the same financial treatment as the professional soldier. The proposition is that one class of professional soldiers, possibly junior in service to another class also of professional soldiers, should not receive a greater and more permanent reward than that second class for service indistinguishable in character and, for the most part, of lesser duration. That is the proposition, and those are the facts in their broad aspect. One would have thought that on those facts it would have been sufficient to appeal to the Government to give instant redress. But it was not. Fortunately there is a higher authority, the House of Commons. In the belief that there will be a ready response to the just claims of these men upon the gratitude of their country, I go over the head of the Prime Minister and come before the House of Commons to-day on their behalf asking for redress.

Mr. JOHN HARRIS: I beg to second the Amendment.
I cannot hope to follow, and I do not intend to attempt to follow, my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken through the technical details which he has given to us on this question. I can only venture to bring to the notice of the House one or two general considerations which appeal to me as a layman in these matters. In the first place, we are happy, in approaching this subject, to feel that this is just one of those subjects which appeal to members of all parties in the House. I believe there is no subject which appeals to the House so strongly as an allegation of injustice to any of His Majesty's subjects, and particularly does that appeal present a strong claim when it affects either officers or men in His Majesty's Army. From statements which have been made in the Press we understand that the Government propose to take the Whips off and to leave Members behind the Government Benches to give an entirely free vote on this matter. I appeal to the Prime Minister to take an early opportunity of giving us definite information upon that point.
If we admit that a strict reading of the contract to which the War Office has referred gives to the War Office some justification for its attitude, we do say that in giving this strict reading to that contract, they have strained to breaking point our normal standards of equity. But, in order to realise all the bearings of this question, we have to get back to the War period; we have to realise the situation which was created in 1914. I have here two documents issued from the War Office in September, 1914. The first document was issued on 15th September to that large body of ranker officers who had retired into civil life. The second document was issued to the employers of the country. In the first document nothing whatever is said about these men being called upon to undertake the onerous responsibilities of commissioned rank. It says that the country needs these ex-ranker officers as drill instructors, and that is all. In the document issued to the employers they are urged to put pressure upon suitable men to come forward and volunteer in a great national crisis. I may be allowed to read one or two passages from this document, which is signed by Sir Reginald Brade:
I am commanded by the Army Council to inform you"—
that is the employers,
that as a result of the great response made by the nation to the King's Appeal, over 600,000 recruits have enlisted into the new Armies since the outbreak of the War, and more men are being attested day by day.
The document goes on to invite the employers to put pressure upon suitable employés to volunteer for this particular service of drill instruction. As I have pointed out, nothing was said in those documents about the possibility of these men being required to do anything more than become drill instructors. Nothing was said as to the possibility of having to serve in the Armies abroad. What was the result of that appeal? These men had retired after long periods of service; many of them had purchased businesses, some of them had settled down in farms, and others had become commercial travellers and had formed business connections all over the country. Large numbers of them had very important interests at stake, but the farmer forsook his plough, the commercial traveller threw up his connection, men sold their businesses and they rallied in response to the appeal. These men
saw one thing only. They saw only a great national need. They did not stop to stipulate for terms. There are those who will say that in this they were foolish. There are those who will say: Why did not these fellows consider, first, their own interests? Why did not they form themselves into a trade union—[HON. MEMBEBS: "Or an employers' association"]—and insist upon specified terms? They did none of these things. Fools they may have been, but I ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to realise that they were in the highest sense patriots. I have had before me a large mass of letters and records relating to these men, and there are two of these documents, of which I desire to give the House a brief outline because they are typical of the whole and will give the House an idea of the type of men who are concerned in this matter, and the conditions under which they are living to-day. They should help the House to realise the urgency of doing something for them. The first letter with which I shall deal is from a man to whom I shall refer as Captain R. W. Anyone who desires the name can have it. The first service of this man was in the attempt to relieve General Gordon at Khartoum. He was pensioned off in 1900. In September, 1914, in response to that letter from the War Office, to which I have referred, he volunteered for a position as drill instructor. In May, 1916, he was sent to France, where his commanding officer told him he was too old for active service and placed him in charge of an officers' school. This man is not complaining. None of these men complain, and that is one of the tragedies of the situation, but he winds up his letter in this way:
In 1914 I was earning nearly £400 a year teaching gymnasium, physical drill, and at other work. When I was demobilised I returned and found my work in the hands of those who did not re-join. I have been unable to recover my work, and the small increase of pension is useless.
The second case to which I shall refer is that of a man who became a lieutenant-colonel. He previously served 21 years and purchased a business on his retirement from the Army in 1909. He retired on a pension of 2s. 4d. a day, his character was marked "exemplary," and he had served in India and Africa. That was the first stage of his career. Then came the second stage—he bought a business. The third stage began at the outbreak of the
Great War, when he threw up his business and undertook the task of instructing troops. In 1916 he was given a commission in order to proceed to France. He commanded a battalion at Messines and for his services was presented to His Majesty. In March, 1918, he was ordered to cover a retirement during the great retreat, and he was instructed to hold a cross-roads near Delville Wood. He succeeded, and by his courage saved some thousands of men from disaster. He concludes his letter:
I was finally demobilised in 1919 on my pre-War pension of 2s. 4d. per diem, which, on appeal, was re-assessed at 4s. per diem."
I ask the House, is that all a grateful country can do for that type of hero? In the White Paper dealt with so ably by my hon. and gallant Friend who moved this Amendment, there is set out on page 7 an Appendix in which is shown the great advantage which the temporary officer has over the regular soldier who is given a permanent commission. The most striking thing to my mind about that table is that the pension to which these officers were entitled for their pre-War service is actually included in it in order to show the advantages which they enjoy. Why should the pension to which these men were entitled in 1914 be set out and calculated in a table of that kind? What are the real objections to giving these men that for which we are asking? Is it finance? We know it will not cost more than a few hundred thousand pounds. Of whom is the War Office afraid? Is it the rich of the country? If so, I am sure their fears are unfounded; and if it is the poor whose opposition is feared, I am quite certain they need have no apprehension. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Briant), and those who have worked among the poor of London know that it is among the poor people you nearly always find the greatest measure of generosity.
A large number of Members of this House have looked into this question and have agreed to sign the four statements read by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Mover of the Amendment. I have here the whole list of original letters signed by members of His Majesty's Government. We have the Postmaster-General,
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, the Minister of Labour, and the Attorney-General. Therefore we feel that in making this appeal to the Government, we have on the Front Bench a solid body of those who believe in the justice of the claim which these men are making. Some hon. Members opposite have also signed documents signifying their support of this claim. It is one thing for a private Member like myself to go back on such promises. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] As I shall show presently in the Division Lobby, I have no intention of going back on my promise, but if I did so, that would be one thing, but it would be a vastly different thing for a British Prime Minister even to give the appearance of going back on his pledge. What would be the effect upon the young manhood of the country if to-morrow we found ourselves in another such national crisis, and they were asked to give their services upon the promise of a Prime Minister? In conclusion, I would remark that certain Members of this House have said they have some doubt as to the justice of this case. I appeal to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have any doubt, to give the benefit of that doubt to the ex-ranker officers to-night.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): We have listened to two very interesting speeches from hon. Members below the Gangway, but I really could not make up my mind whether either of them was the more concerned with the ex-ranker officer or with my moral character. I propose to deal with both, so that, whatever their intention was, they will be equally satisfied. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Nottingham (Captain Berkeley), who moved the Amendment, went into a very large number of technicalities. I am not at all competent to follow him there. That is not my job. I did detect, however, that here and there he observed a very careful limit in his explanations. For instance, when he accused the War Office of having departed from principle regarding quartermasters and their pensions, he must have known that that was owing to contract. He must have known that the reason why that was done was that the War Office found that, by the omission of the word "combatant," quartermasters were included in an order in which, perhaps, they were not meant originally to be included.

Captain BERKELEY: It took them five years to find it out.

The PRIME MINISTER: It may have done, but if it takes the War Office five years to be just regarding quartermasters, how long is it going to take to discover that the ex-rankers' contract ought equally to be carried out? The hon. and gallant Member cannot have it both ways. However, as I said, I am not going into these details. Both hon. Members were good enough to refer to pledges that I have given, and both wore good enough to preach a little to me regarding the fulfilment of pledges, the duty of a Prime Minister, and the great honour of our public life. I am glad they appreciate it, and I hope, I sincerely hope, that under the cloak of honour there is no suspicion of mere partisan politics. Now what happened? I, in common with a great many others, received a questionnaire. The hon. and gallant Member was very careful in not reading that questionnaire.

Captain BERKELEY: In order to save time.

The PRIME MINISTER: That may be, but I am going to read it. The first question is this:
Do you agree that professional ranker officers of the Army, performing similar duties under identical conditions, should receive equal treatment as regards retired pay?
The answer to that is "Yes"—"performing similar duties under identical conditions." The second question is even more important than the first. It is—
Army pensioned ranker officers, numbering 2,500"—
to gain electoral support. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh!"] I only make the point which was made against me. When it was made against my hon. Friends and myself, those below the Gangway cheered. When I make commonsense reflections upon it, they shake their heads in holy horror! The second question, I say, is even more important than the first. It is:
Army pensioned ranker officers, numbering 2,500, all of whom are professional soldiers of long service, were not at the conclusion of the War included in the terms of Army Regulations governing retired pay of ranker officers. They were relegated to their warrant or non-commissioned status for pension, the average amount of which is £75 a year, whereas the minimum retired pay of
ranker officers of junior service is £150 a year.
Is that a complete statement of the case? No, of course it is not. If the case had been stated completely, then the answer given to it would have had more moral binding force than it can possibly have. The third question is:
Do you admit that this is an anomaly?
Of course, I do. Given the truth of those two questions, it is an anomaly. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain), told us the other day that he suspected—I am sorry I did not hear his speech, but I understood that that was the gist of what he said—

Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: Not that I suspected, but that I inquired.

The PRIME MINISTER: He was not sure, and he inquired, and he found that there was something else, and he did not pledge himself. I wish I had been equally cautious. I took these questions at their face value, and I felt then, what I feel now, that if those two questions described accurately and fully and fairly the status of any body of ex-service men in this country, then they deserved my support, and the support of my friends around me, and would get it all the time. What is the effect of this? The suggestion is that a small body of men, only 2,500, neglected because they were small, had injustice done to them, because the War Office and the House of Commons did not pay any attention to them on account of their smallness. That is the suggestion. I saw those men at the end of the War, treated differently from other men, serving under the same conditions, in the same contracts, doing the same work precisely in every respect. I put it to hon. Members—they may make a party advantage of this, but I do not care—I put it to hon. Members, emptying their mind of any knowledge at all of what is concealed here, to read those two questions as a layman, as I was, and as I am, so far as the War Office is concerned. I came to the conclusion that these men had been isolated, that injustice had been done them. I said I would support them.
What did they conceal? They concealed a good many things. They concealed, for instance, that, unlike permanently appointed officers, they enjoyed their pensions whilst they were also
enjoying their pay. Why should not they? They can only do that if they assume and admit that the period of service for which they were pensioned has come to an end. You cannot get pension for a continuing service. If a service is continuing, you get paid for it; if a service is finished, you get pensioned for it; and if, on their rejoining, those men said—as they were perfectly entitled to say—"We are going to close that bill, the book of our old service, we decline to regard it as a continuing service, we will insist upon retaining our pension for the closed service, we will insist upon the War Office regarding that service as absolutely closed, done with, and pensionable, and pensioned, treated quite apart," then the new contract is new, and they enjoy the pension of the old whilst performing the duties and receiving the pay of the new. I think, really, our questioners ought to have told us about that.
There is another thing about which they did not tell us. I only discovered it when my right hon. Friend came to answer that first question. There is no disclosure here, about what happened on demobilisation. On demobilisation they received special treatment, because they were not going to receive this extra pension. On demobilisation each man who had received this temporary pension got a gratuity equal to four months' pay for the first year of his service plus two months' pay for subsequent years of his service and for any broken year. Should not that have been disclosed to us? Is not that an essential point?

Mr. MACPHERSON: May I ask whether these facts were disclosed in June?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am dealing with the questionnaire. My right hon. Friend imagines that I, or, if he likes to hold himself up as an example of a man who never forgets anything he may have read, then I envy him, but he is far above me—I am dealing with the thing that was put in front of me in December. I am dealing with the literature that accompanied that thing that was put in front of me in December. I am dealing with information put at my disposal in the midst of an Election, which was given to me for the purpose of receiving from me a pledge, as an honourable man, that
they could come to me afterwards and say, "Fulfil that pledge as an honourable man." Beyond that, I do not go, and I say that those two absolutely essential pieces of information were not there, were withheld, and that the suggestions made in the two questionnaires were misleading. That is my case. Now let us see exactly how we find ourselves. I have for some time come to the conclusion that this growing method of throwing long questionnaires at candidates—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]

Mr. PRINGLE: Why not refuse to answer?

7.0 P.M.

The PRIME MINISTER: This method of throwing long questionnaires at candidates is beginning to be grossly abused. I should like—and I do not like coalitions—to throw out a hint to the other two parties, that we might, after such experiences as these, form a coalition to refuse to answer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!" and "Agreed!"]

Captain TERRELL: Will the Prime Minister introduce legislation with that object? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

The PRIME MINISTER: I could not introduce legislation to form a coalition. If these questions had been accurate, the promise I gave was a right promise, and it could have been carried out. But there it was, it was not fair. It was taking an advantage of candidates to throw these things at them, especially in the middle of an election. Now let us see where we stand. I should like to know why my hon. Friends are so anxious about this category of men alone. Why is the hon. and gallant Member for Central Nottingham anxious about the category of men alone?

Captain BERKELEY: We are anxious about these men, because of the astonishing state of anomalies created by the War Office in treating some of the ex-rankers in a different way to other ex-rankers. There are 50,000 altogether. 47,500 have received the retired pay and there are 2,500 men who were relegated out into the cold.

Major-General Sir J. DAVIDSON: May I ask whether the Prime Minister proposes to treat all the pledges he gave at the General Election as he is treating
this pledge? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

The PRIME MINISTER: Let us see where we are. Do hon. Members imagine that they are going to treat this category of men apart from every other section of men treated or not treated in the same bad way, from the field marshal down to the humblest Tommy?

Captain BERKELEY: In the Prime Minister's own words, "One step enough for me."

The PRIME MINISTER: Well, then, let us understand. This is the situation now. We are asked to pass this Amendment, not on its merits, or not only on its merits; but, having passed this Amendment, the War Office is going to be pressed again and again to refuse every contractual relationship—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—both for these men and non-commissioned officers whose request that they should become temporary commissioned officers was refused. The whole point is this. The House is being asked to commit itself to a subject that it does not understand in the least, nor does it understand how far it is going to go, and what are the commitments it has taken on itself in consequence? There are large categories other than these. A friend of mine to whom I was talking said about this Amendment, "Well, I hope you will carry it"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes; he is a brigadier-general and has a pension of a major. What I want to face is this. If there be a problem and the War Office is doing injustice in respect to this category of men, let us know. The speech made by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment is full of in accuracies [HON. MEMBERS: "What are they?"] I have pointed out one. The questionnaire is not full. We are told that the White Paper issued by the War Office is partial. Well, the accusations seem to be pretty catholic. If the House of Commons is wise, it will inquire into the whole thing. Let us see what is in this Amendment. The hon. Member who has drafted this Amendment has been very careful to leave out the essential parts of the questionnaire. The hon. and gallant Member's Amendment reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, professional ranker officers of the Army should receive equal treatment as regards retired pay or pension.
Now, my conception is not exactly that. Equality is based upon equal conditions. I think it is convenient to repeat it again. What does the Amendment mean?
That, in the opinion of this House, professional ranker officers of the Army should receive equal treatment as regards retired pay or pension.
Equal to whom?

Captain BERKELEY: To each other.

The PRIME MINISTER: But one of the great points made by the hon. and gallant Member was that the treatment was to be equal to that given to naval officers. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"]

Captain BERKELEY: I never made that point.

The PRIME MINISTER: Well, the hon. and gallant Member made it a strong point. Are we going to be so innocent as to assume that in any readjustment on this basis the treatment given to naval men is not going to be taken into account in a further agitation and probably in another Amendment? The thing is absurd—dealing with it in this sort of piecemeal, haphazard fashion. I therefore suggest—and I have never retired from my declaration—that men suffering from a wrong should receive justice generally. If ranker officers suffer, I would support the adjustment, but if they do not suffer I would not support it. Taking that attitude, I do not abate one jot or tittle from the pledge I gave. I therefore suggest that we should come to some agreement over this matter. The House wishes to do the right thing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] We all want to do the right thing, both to the ex-service men and to the taxpayer. We want to see fair play and that equity is done all round. It is not enough for men to make a claim in order that they should get it. They must establish the ground upon which they make the claim. If this Amendment be carried the only effect would be that Mr. Speaker does not leave the Chair. Then we waste a day. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, I must be very careful. Let me put it in a way that will not offend the susceptibilities of hon. Members. We shall take two days to do what we could do in one day. I prefer, when the House of Commons comes to a decision, that it does not use its thumbs in order to draft its instructions, either to the Government or to the War Office. If this Amendment be
passed, the House of Commons is only making a declaration affecting an admittedly small section—2,500 men. It is admittedly a small section right in the middle of the whole range of the Army service. You have left out the men at the bottom, and you have left out the men at the top. If this House of Commons decides to pass this Amendment this is what will be done. I would suggest that we ought to do something better than that. My suggestion is this: When I saw the position in which this question was—I have no majority; hon. Members opposite have no majority; hon. Members below the Gangway on this side have no majority—it is impossible for the Government to say, "We have decided to do so and so, and are putting on our Whips and we shall make this question one of confidence." That is impossible. I should certainly not make this question a vote of confidence. I considered how best to approach the matter and I suggested that a Select Committee should be set up drawn from all parties in this House, with an appeal to hon. Members who compose it to sit as severe judges listening to the evidence and coming to an independent decision. That suggestion, however, for one reason or another, has been rejected. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I have more faith in some hon. Members than they apparently have in themselves. It was my intention to get hon. Members of the House of Commons to do their duty and come to an independent decision upon the matter, so that they could guide the whole House as to what its duty was. I suggest now that the thing should be done in a somewhat better way.
The late Government, I think it was, was in difficulties in a similar way about the Civil Service Entrants. In order that the whole thing should be taken away from party pressure and the suspicion of party pressure, a Committee was set up of outsiders presided over by Lord Lytton. That Committee became known as the Lytton Committee, and the people concerned by it. [Interruption.] If hon. Members condemn that I make a present both of their minds and arguments. I suggest again that this matter should be dealt with in the same way. But it is not enough that this small middle section should be dealt with.
Before this House comes to a decision about that section, and before this House comes to a decision about the 2,500, the House ought to know exactly to what it is committing itself. That is business in a thing like this with its inevitable consequences.
I have already had two deputations from other sections expecting the success of this move, and asking that their cases should be considered, and that they should be treated in the same way as it is proposed in the case of the ranker temporary officers. Of course we must do it. There are no hon. Members in whatever quarter of the House who are under the delusion that you are going to vote on this thing to-night, and leave it in exactly the condition in which it will be left by this Amendment. I, therefore, suggest—I do not know whether I might appeal to hon. Members on that understanding—that a Committee be at once set up, say, of three good representative, influential men to consider this question—I do not commit myself exactly to the terms of reference, but they will be something of this kind:
To consider the claims of professional ex-ranker officers, having regard to the general conditions of service in the Army during the late War, and to report.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: As I understand it, that excludes the private soldier, the non-commissioned officer and the warrant officer, all of whom have equal claim. Is that so?

The PRIME MINISTER: If that be so it must be changed. That is not the intention, because I think the effect of the wording of the suggestion is to consider the claims of the professional ranker officers having regard to the conditions of service in the Army. I am informed that that best covers the points. But do not let us boggle over any form of words. The intention is not to confine inquiry merely to the case of the professional officer. I can assure hon. Members that the terms of reference will be so wide that the whole question can be considered.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will it include the other ranks who never became officers at all, and who started, we will say, on the old pension as sergeants and finished up as warrant officers?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, I referred to that in that part of my speech
in which I dealt with the intentions of the Government. If there is any doubt about it, as this has been hurriedly drafted, I will see that they are included. I desire that we should be agreed upon the wording of the terms of reference.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman include the corresponding ranks in the Navy?

The PRIME MINISTER: The problem is big enough and difficult enough as it is.

Mr. MILLS: Will the right hon. Gentleman include in the terms of reference the barrack wardens, who were refused permission to re-enlist as drill instructors?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I have not got the technical knowledge to answer that off-hand, but the intention is to include men of all ranks who engaged in combatant service during the War and who were influenced by the same conditions and considerations of service as the ex-ranker officers. As I said, I am quite sure that everybody who cares for the House of Commons will deprecate a decision on a matter like this with so many consequences and so much involved. The case is not quite straightened out. It is not quite clear. Many ex parte statements have been made. These need to be sifted and carefully weighed before being finally concluded. How many have been? None! Under these circumstances the House will consult business if nothing else, the best business way of doing its work, if it will agree that the whole matter should become before an authoritatively agreed committee so that this House can act upon whatever report the committee present to it.

Mr. BALDWIN: I only propose to occupy the House for a very short time. If this question and discussion lead to a lengthy Debate my right hon. Friend who has been Secretary of State for War will take part in it. I merely rise to say a few words on the proposal which has been put before the House by the Prime Minister. The suggestion is in a way a novel one, but the situation is also a novel one. There is no question, to my mind, whatever the distribution of parties may be, that this is a subject on which the Government ought to have made up its mind and given a lead to the House of Commons. We have to deal with a situation. They have failed to do that.
The question is what is the best course of action for us to suggest to the House? Under these circumstances, I am convinced that the best course of action is to accept the committee described to deal with this question, and for this reason: I was not in favour, and I am not now in favour of a Committee of the House of Commons. I think it would be a most risky proceeding to leave a question of this kind to the open vote of the House of Commons, so many among us are pledged. The difficulties of leaving it to an open vote are obvious. Will the House take that from me who have had some experience in the last few years. This question, and the questions attendant upon it, are questions of extraordinary complexity, not only in themselves, but in what they involve. It would be perfectly impossible for a Member of this House who has not had the opportunity of studying the evidence of all sides to come to the conclusion which would be alike fair, and we have to deal fairly as between the soldiers and the taxpayers.
But the Prime Minister, I think, touched a very serious and difficult point when he spoke about the questionnaire. Apparently some hon. Members sign these questionnaires without inquiry. My right hon. Friend who sits beside me sometimes signs a questionnaire, having made an inquiry. Surely, however, the best course is the course I invariably pursue—I never answer! The most timorous may take heart, for I have done that time after time. We have a question which, as the Prime Minister has explained, is one of very great complexity and which brings in its train a series of other questions equally difficult. It will be invaluable for this House to have these matters sifted by an expert Committee. The result of their investigations and the evidence on which they base their conclusions will come before this House in their Report. We shall then, all of us, be in a far better position than we would be after a couple of hours' Debate to decide what is the best thing to do. If the Report should be in favour of making considerable concessions, and if it is adopted, it will have to be embodied in an Estimate, and then full and free discussion can take place in the House. If the Report turns down all the demands of those interested, and if the Government support the Committee, then it will be open to anyone to put down
a Motion to censure the Government, and in any case we shall get a Division upon it. I hope what I have said will commend itself to the House, and will induce a majority to fall in, under these very singular circumstances, with the suggestion which has been made. I think I am speaking for the majority of those who sit behind me in what I have said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."]

Dr. MACNAMARA: I hope I may be allowed to express my views for a few moments upon this matter. No one desires to make a personal attack upon the Prime Minister, neither have we any particular desire to make a partisan attack, but we are concerned with seeing fair play to a body of men to whom this nation can never fully requite its obligations. I was brought up amongst their predecessors, and I am entitled to speak on behalf of them. The Prime Minister is very solicitous about his honour, and so are all of us, but surely we can say a word on behalf of the honour of those with whom we are dealing. To speak of concealment in the questionnaire, and the suggestions being misleading is not a fail-way of putting it. May I read a letter which has been sent on behalf of the Prime Minister to a ranker officer in the Glamorganshire group, who complained that the Prime Minister had suggested that these good people had done something quite unworthy. The letter I am going to quote is dated 19th February last, and it is as follows:
The Prime Minister is obliged for your letter of the 16th instant, and is sorry beyond words for the little incident which has been and which is being exploited for purely partisan purposes. Mr. MacDonald knows perfectly well that you had no intention of deceiving him.
After that, what is the use of talking about concealment? The letter proceeds:
But the way in which the question was worded rather misled him"—
that is not concealment—
as to the position of his friends. He came amongst a mass of stuff, and, glancing through it, thought the grievance was that you had been specially left out of the re-grading of pensions. The Prime Minister would not for the world break a pledge which he had given"—
of course, I accept that statement. The letter proceeds—
and he is having the matter looked into still further. As you are aware, the War Office must have the last word"—
I think that is quite an improper observation, because it is for the House of Commons to have the last word—
and if anything can be done, the Prime Minister will do it as a matter of duty. He is desirous of impressing upon you, however, that he never had in his mind the fact that you had done anything that was improper.
I thought I might read that letter in reply to the charge of concealment. I am amazed and dismayed at the decision of the Prime Minister, and if I am the only one to vote for this Amendment I shall go into the Lobby alone. I hope the late Prime Minister will re-consider his decision. What was first proposed to us was that this matter should be referred to a Select Committee, but I understand that was not agreeable to hon. Members, and then the Prime Minister said: "If you do not think a Select Committee will not meet the case, I will not put on the Whips, and the matter can be left to a free vote of the House." The stage was set in that sense. The War Office issued a White Paper, which says the worst that can be said about this matter, and I will not put it stronger than that, although I could do so. The War Office issued that White Paper, and now we are invited to send this matter for consideration to a Committee of three outside experts.
As far as I am concerned, I shall not agree to that course, and if the Government is going to contest this point they must defeat it in the Division Lobby. The facts of the case are fully before us. The War Office has stated its case, and now this urgent and acute matter is to be mixed up with all sorts of other questions put by hon. Members, who got up in all quarters of the House and suggested that the inquiry should include naval officers, warrant officers and barrack wardens. Where is there going to be an end to all this? Here is an acute problem, long overdue, and if we are going to have this endless vista of inquiry, goodness knows when it will end!
I should have thought that this would have appealed particularly to the Members of the Labour Party, because the Front Bench are themselves ranker officers, and we are very proud of it. For myself I have a class conscience enough to make me admire them for being proud of that. I should have thought that
they would have backed up this point at once. This House of Commons should not allow this kind of thing to go on any longer, and we ought to tell the War Office and the Treasury, with the House of Commons compliments, that they had better pay up and look cheerful.

Sir J. DAVIDSON: I think this question is getting extremely confused. This is an important matter, and I would suggest to the Government that they should extend the terms of the reference to this Committee to cover all the pledges made by the Prime Minister at the last Election. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! Oh!"] I am speaking quite in earnest, and I mean what I say. I have in my hand a pledge signed by the Prime Minister to remove the means limit in the case of pre-War pensions, and why not include that in the terms of reference? I am fully in sympathy with what was said by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last, and if this Amendment goes to a Division I shall support it in the Lobby, not upon any question of the merits or demerits of the case, but from a standpoint upon which I feel very strongly, and that is that a pledge is a pledge and ought to be fulfilled. When you sign a pledge you ought to understand it or not sign it. For these reasons I think hon. Members ought to go into the Lobby in support of this Amendment.

Mr. LANSBURY: I do not intend to give a silent vote on this question. I think it is monstrous that an attempt should be made to push this matter down our throats. I think the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have a responsibility in this matter which ought to have been fulfilled last year, when this matter was brought up time after time. I never sign any questionnaire without trying to understand it, and when this one came to me at the previous Election I took the trouble to ask some of the men concerned, and who had a grievance, to come and see me about the matter. My own view is that they have made out, their case. I have listened to what the Prime Minister has said, and I do not think he has destroyed their case. You do not destroy one case by throwing out a whole lot of others and saying: "If you remedy this injustice you will be called upon to remedy all these others." The grievances of these men have been put forward quite clearly by the two hon. Members who
moved and seconded this Amendment and the Prime Minister has not replied to the points that were made. As to concealment, the one thing that we are told has been concealed is the fact that these men had a gratuity when they left the service. I may say that if the House is willing to deal with these men on the lines they are asking for, they are perfectly willing that that gratuity should be a set off. That is something which everybody knows the men have agreed to, and it does seem to me that the House itself ought to decide this question. With regard to pledges, I think myself that the electors have a perfect right to ask anyone who is asking for their suffrages whether he will support this, that, or the other in which his constituents may be interested.
I would like to point out that it is no greater crime for these men to ask their representatives to support their claim than it is for those interested in agriculture to ask their Members of Parliament to support matters which are of interest to that industry. The House of Commons is in quite a different position to that in which it was placed in days gone by. You legislate upon more questions which affect the life of the people, and they are entitled to ask us what we intend to do in regard to them. Another thing I want to say is in regard to the difficult position that persons like myself are placed in by the Prime Minister's proposition. Up to this evening we all imagined that we should have a free vote on this question. Only yesterday I met some of these officers, and the day before I met some more of these men, and we agreed to take certain action. I cannot play fast and loose with my promises, anyhow. I do not think that any of us, once having made a pledge, ought to go back upon it. Much as I hated the War, and much as I would have done to stop the War, those men performed a service which no other men in the country could have performed, and I think it is the height of meanness to treat them in this fashion. For those reasons I propose to go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment.

Sir GERALD HOHLER: I do not propose to continue the Debate at any length. The case has been admirably stated by my hon. Friend. The only reason I rise is to explain to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition
exactly why I cannot accept the view he does. I was aware that this question was a live question at the last election and the previous one. I knew the difficulties that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has indicated. I gave no pledge that bound me to do anything in regard to the matter at the election, but, since the election, having seen the pledge the Prime Minister had given, I did pledge myself to support these men. That being so, I shall vote in the Division accordingly.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: rose—

Mr. WALSH: May I appeal to the House? We have surely debated this enough.

Sir B. FALLE: I shall not detain the House more than two minutes. I only want to say that I support what my hon. and learned Friend has just said. If we are to have a Committee, at least they should investigate the points which refer to the Services, and if the Junior Service, why not the Senior Service? It would not take up the time of the Committee for any considerable period. If the Prime Minister will allow the Senior Service also to be included, I shall give him my vote. If not, I shall vote for these officers.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 201.

Division No. 26.]
AYES.
[7.50 p.m.


Ackroyd, T. R.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Kennedy, T.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Gavan-Duffy, Thomas
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Kirkwood, D.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Gillett, George M.
Lane-Fox, George R.


Alexander, Brg.-Gen. Sir W. (Glas, C.)
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Law, A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gosling, Harry
Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)


Ammon, Charles George
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lawson, John James


Attlee, Major Clement R.
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Leach, W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Lee, F.


Banton, G.
Greenall, T.
Lindley, F. W.


Barclay, R. Noton
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Barnes, A.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lowth, T.


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lunn, William


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Grigg, Lieut.-Col. Sir Edward W. M.
M'Entee, V. L.


Bondfield, Margaret
Groves, T.
Mackinder, W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Grundy, T. W.
McLean, Major A.


Briant, Frank
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Broad, F. A.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Bromfield, William
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.
March, S.


Buchanan, G.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Marley, James


Buckie, J.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)



Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Maxton, James


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hardie, George D.
Mills, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Harland, A.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Harris, Percy A.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Montague, Frederick


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Haycock, A. W.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hayday, Arthur
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Charleton, H. C.
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Mosley, Oswald


Clarke, A.
Hemmerde, E. G.
Muir, John W.


Clayton, G. C.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Murray, Robert


Climie, R.
Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfield)
Murrell, Frank


Cluse, W. S.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Nixon, H.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hirst, G. H.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hoare, Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Paling, W.


Costello, L. W. J.
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Palmer, E. T.


Cove, W. G.
Hoffman, P. C.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Pennefather, Sir John


Crittall, V. G.
Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)
Penny, Frederick George


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hudson, J. H.
Perring, William George


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Perry, S. F.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Isaacs, G. A.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Potts, John S.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Purcell, A. A.


Dickson, T.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Raffety, F. W.


Dukes, C.
Jewson, Dorothea
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Duncan, C.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Raynes, W. R.


Egan, W. H.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rentoul, G. S.


FitzRoy, Capt. Rt. Hon. Edward A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Richards, R.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Ritson, J.
Steel, Samuel Strang
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Weir, L. M.


Robinson, W. E. (Burslem)
Sullivan, J.
Welsh, J. C.


Romeril, H. G.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Westwood, J.


Ropner, Major L.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Whiteley, W.


Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Wignall, James


Russell-Wells, Sir S. (London Univ.)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Williams David (Swansea, E.)


Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Williams, Lt.-Col. T. S. B. (Kennington)


Scurr, John
Tillett, Benjamin
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Sexton, James
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Toole, J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Sherwood George Henry
Tout, W. J.
Windsor, Walter


Shinwell, Emanuel
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.


Smillie, Robert
Turner, Ben
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Varley, Frank B.
Wright, W.


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Viant, S. P.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wallhead, Richard C.
Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)


Spence, R.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen



Spoor, B. G.
Warne, G. H.
TELLERS FOB THE AYES.—


Stamford, T. W.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Mr. Arthur Henderson, Junior, and


Stanley, Lord
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Mr. Walter Samuel.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Meller, R. J.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Ferguson, H.
Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.


Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)
Finney, V. H.
Middleton, G.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.
Mitchell R. M. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Foot, Isaac
Mond, H.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Forestier-Walker, L.
Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A. C. (Honiton)


Ayles, W. H.
Franklin, L. B.
Moulton, Major Fletcher


Baker, W. J.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Naylor, T. E.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Beckett, Sir Gervase
Gates, Percy
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Nichol, Robert


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Gilbert, James Daniel
Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)


Berry, Sir George
Gorman, William
O'Neill, John Joseph


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)
Owen, Major G.


Birkett, W. N.
Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)


Black, J. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Blundell, F. N.
Harbord, Arthur
Phillipps, Vivian


Bonwick, A.
Harvey, C. M. B. (Aberd'n & Kincardne)
Pielou, D. P.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hillary, A. E.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Briscoe, Captain Richard George
Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel
Pringle, W. M. R.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hogbin, Henry Cairns
Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford


Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Hogge, James Myles
Rathbone, Hugh R.


Brunner, Sir J.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Rea, W. Russell


Bullock, Captain M.
Horlick, Lieut. Colonel J. N.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Burman, J. B.
Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)
Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Illffe, Sir Edward M.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Chapman, Sir S.
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)
Royce, William Stapleton


Chapple, Dr. William A.
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Royle, C.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)
Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.


Clarry, Reginald George
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Kay, Sir R. Newbald
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Collins, Patrick (Walsall)
Kedward, R. M.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Compton, Joseph
Keens, T.
Savery, S. S.


Comyns-Carr, A. S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)


Cope, Major William
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Seely, Rt. Hon. Maj.-Gen. J. E. B. (I. of W.)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Lamb, J. Q.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry Page
Laverack, F. J.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lessing, E.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Linfield, F. C.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Darbishire, Charles W.
Livingstone, A. M.
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lorimer, H. D.
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Loverseed, J. F.
Stephen, Campbell


Deans, Richard Storry
Lumley, L. R.
Stranger, Innes Harold


Dodds, S. R.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
McCrae, Sir George
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Duckworth, John
MacDonald, R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Macfadyen, E.
Sunlight, J.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Sutcliffe, T.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Ednam, Viscount
Maden, H.
Tattersall, J. L.


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)
Mansel, Sir Courtenay
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Elvedon, Viscount
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Falconer, J.
Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.
Thornton, Maxwell R.




Thurtle, E.
Wells, S. R.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Tichfield, Major the Marquess of
Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Vivian, H.
Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.


Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)
Williams, Maj. A. S. (Kent, Sevenoaks)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Willison, H.



Warrender, Sir Victor
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Webb, Lieut.-Col. Sir H. (Cardiff, E.)
Winfrey, Sir Richard
Mr. John Harris and Mr. Lansbury.


Question put, and agreed to.

Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

Lieut.-Colonel HODGE: I find in these Estimates that references are made on various pages right through the book to the accounts for the year 1922–23. I should like to ask why the accounts for this period are not yet in our hands? The period up to 1922 ended on 31st March last year. It is conceivable that information has to come into the War Office from the uttermost parts of the earth, but I submit that a whole year is ample time for that account to have been made up and for that document to be in our hands. In any event, I submit that the Secretary of State for War has no right whatever to refer to that document unless it is in our hands. It evidently is a complete document. I pass from that to the Estimate itself. The Estimate on page 5 shows that there is a reduction of £7,000,000. I suppose, in spite of the fact that the Labour Government have merely taken over a legacy from the late Government, it will be believed in the country that the Labour Government is saving £7,000,000 on reduced Estimates. Before we call that a saving at all, I should like to ask how much of a surplus was anticipated from last year The reduction is £7,000,000, but if there is an anticipated surplus of another £7,000,000, then there is no reduction at all in the current year. If, in fact, the anticipated surplus for last year exceeds the sum of £7,000,000, then I am going to tell the Government that their expenditure for the current year is rather move than it was last year. The country never discusses the Army Account when it comes out; the country discusses the Estimate, and only if there is a reduction. We have had no evidence at all that there is a reduction.
I should like to refer to page 5 of the Estimates, and I want to say that here I think there is a gross misrepresentation of the cost of the Army. On page 5 under head 5, Capital Accounts, there is a sum shown in the column for the year 1924–25 of a credit for £1,701,000.
That item represents an amount which was drawn on the reserves of stock which the Government has held. If reference is made to the Estimate Accounts, Volume 21–22, on page 123, it will be seen at the bottom that the stocks in hand which the Government hold amounted to £126,000,000. That sum is being gradually reduced. It is being taken from by the Army and is not being shown in the Army Accounts. Of course, it will be said that this is a cash statement. The expression is used, "Heads of Cost." We want to know what the Army is costing. The word "cost" includes more than cash payments. It includes the amount of stocks you are taking from the Army stocks. I am going further. You will see on page 2 of the Estimates that for the last four years the real cost of the Army has been misrepresented and under-represented to the amount of nearly £34,000,000. I make that suggestion, and I would like to have an answer from the Secretary of State for War on that point. I cannot congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the form of the accounts. I do not think it should be necessary to have to hunt in at least three different parts of the account when you wish to discover how much a particular Department is costing.
Let us take, for example, the cost of the remounts. If you look at page 130 you will find that cost of maintenance is shown at £119,980. On page 132 is shown the cost of horses boarded out, £13,150, and then I have to turn to another page, page 272, and I find that several retired officers engaged in this department cost £22,674. That sort of thing makes us rather suspicious as to why these charges should be tucked away in different parts of the account. These retired officers are three inspectors of remounts costing £2,100 a year. They get £700 a year each, in addition to their retired pay. There are six deputy assistant inspectors of remounts costing £2,214. There are 50 district remount officers costing £18,360. I should like to know what these retired Army officers are doing. The Secretary
of State for War spoke at considerable length this afternoon about mechanicalising the Army. He even referred to the fact that he has mechanicalised the Field Artillery. I understand these 69 officers are costing over £22,000, and they are engaged up and down the country in seeking where a supply of horses can be obtained in the case of another war. That is, in my opinion, a scandalous misuse of £20,000. That is one of the reasons why we have so much trouble in finding out exactly what each Department costs. I commend to the Secretary of State for War that he should try to see that in future as little trouble as possible is given in finding out what the real cost of things is. I want to refer to Woolwich and Sandhurst. I notice on page 47 that the cost of a cadet last year came out at £46 18s. 6d. per head more than was expected, and the reason given is that it was due to the reduction in numbers of from 260 to 140. That may be quite a good reason.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present—

Lieut.-Colonel HODGE: I was referring to the excuse given in the Estimates for the increased cost per head at Woolwich, and to the fact that the Estimates give as a reason that it was due to the reduction in numbers. I find, however, that at Sandhurst, although the number of cadets has fallen from 660 to 620, the cost per head has remained practically the same. That requires some explanation. It would almost appear that any excuse is good enough except the right one. I also notice, as far as Woolwich is concerned, that it is anticipated that £29,650 will be received from parents in respect of 240 cadets, but that last year, in respect of 265 cadets, only £22,728 was received. The same thing applies to Sandhurst, and it suggests that the Government anticipates receiving this year a good deal more from the parents of cadets.
Much reference has been made this afternoon to the Haldane Report—the Report which is to democratise the Army. On page 3 of that Report it is stated that:
The type of education in the secondary schools available for the children of parents in comparatively humble circumstances is now higher than it has been at any time in the past, and barriers, social and intellectual,
have been and daily continue to be broken down.
I see no signs at all of these social barriers being broken down. I find that Wellington College sent 49 boys to the Army last year, that Eton sent 22, Harrow 18, Marlborough 13, Charterhouse 10, and Rugby 8. From six schools of the country, therefore, 120 men go to Woolwich and Sandhurst, and it means that from these six schools are supplied one-third of the commissions in the Army. Two ex-Secretaries of State for War have stated that we are not getting a sufficient number of cadets for Sandhurst and Woolwich, conceivably owing to the high fees. I wish we knew a little more about these fees. The Haldane Report suggests that the sum of £300 is enough to see a boy right through Sandhurst or Woolwich, and he is fit to get a commission at something well over £300 a year. It would be rather interesting to know how the sums receivable from parents are really derived. We find that, if a man happens to be the son of a serving lieut.-colonel, his fees are £80 a year. If he is the son of a serving colonel, the fees are the same, namely, £80. If he is the son of a major-general or a lieut.-general, his fees are £95, and if he is the son of a serving general they are £105; while in the case of the son of a private gentleman—which, of course, includes the private working man—the fees are £200 a year.
I have no objection at all to the sons of deceased officers getting it for nothing, if necessary, and I have no objection to the sons of active officers up to the rank of major being allowed certain reductions; but, when I regard the fact that the salary of a serving lieutenant-colonel is £1,256, of a serving colonel anything from £1,400 to £1,500, of a major-general over £2,000, of a lieutenant-general £3,300 and of a general £4,300, I object to these men getting any reduction at all on the fees for the education of their sons for the Army. Talk about a close corporation! It is nearly as bad as the House of Lords; it has been so wrapped up in the hereditary system. That is what they call democratising the Army. I remember asking last year if the son of a working man was allowed to go to Sandhurst, and at once the answer was given, "Oh, yes, we are 88 short." Great play has been made with the statement
that 32 rankers went to (Sandhurst last year. It is rather interesting to know how a ranker gets a commission in the Army. He has five steps. First of all—and I do not object to this—he must be in possession of a Special Army Certificate of education. He must be at least an unpaid lance-corporal of six months' standing; his commanding officer must certify that he has shown promise of leadership, and that he, the commanding officer, would be willing to accept him as an officer in his regiment. Then the brigade commander must see the candidate and state his opinion as to his fitness and suitability; and then the general officer commanding the division endorses the recommendation. That is the equivalent for the poor man's son being without the £300 which it is suggested would pay for an 18 months' course at either Woolwich or Sandhurst. On that I have a suggestion to make. The Haldane Report, at page 4, states that:
The evidence that has been submitted to us makes it clear that the present mode of supply cannot be relied upon as likely to prove sufficient in the future.
Much has been made of the influence of the lords-lieutenant in matters military, and I would like to make the suggestion that, if possible, the different counties in the country might see their way to establish scholarships for the Army, of the value of, say, £500 a year, which would enable a young man to get through either Sandhurst or Woolwich and fit him up with uniform. The winner of such a county scholarship could join the county regiment—there could be no question of his not being good enough to join it—and those entitled to sit for such a scholarship ought to consist of boys whose parents have means not more than, say, £200 a year. I think that if the Secretary for War followed that up with the lords-lieutenant, he might meet with a degree of success which possibly he little anticipates.
I now come to what is, perhaps, the most important subject to-night—the financial administration of the Army, and, in particular, the Lawrence Report. I congratulate the Government, in the first place, upon issuing this Report. I remember that last year I expressed the hope that the Lawrence Committee would do its work, and that, the Committee having reported, the Army Council would
do its work; and it has begun to do its work by publishing the Report. I now want to express the hope that the Army Council will be strong enough to see that the recommendations in the Lawrence Report are carried through. It is very undesirable, when we hear of Departmental Committees examining into very important questions, to be told, as we have been told, "You cannot expect this Report. You have no right to expect it. It does not concern you." That is what it amounts to. However, we have the Report. I wish to strengthen the hands of the Secretary of State in pushing home the recommendations contained in this Report by informing him of a few facts. This is one remark that the Report makes.
It is proved to demonstration that, by a proper system of accounting, economies to an extent at present unrealised can be effected.
I remember last year speaking to benches just as full as this, but I am getting rather nicer treatment to-night for the reason that I regard the Lawrence Report as an absolute justification of the attitude I took a year ago. I was jeered at by the Opposition. When the then Financial Secretary to the War Office, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gwynne), got up he admitted that he had been four days in office—not a wonderful testimonial to answer for anyone—and yet I said, "I do not blame you. I throw these out as suggestions." But I was met with nothing but untrue statements. When I was jeered at I told them, "I wish your constituents were here to see you laughing." I hope the Under-Secretary for War and the Financial Secretary to the War Office will take any suggestions I make to-night in the best possible spirit. They may feel that I am wrong in my suggestions, but the facts I am going to lay before them ought to convince them. The Lawrence Report further states:
The fact is that prior to the introduction of the new system there was nothing in the Army outside the War Office worthy to be called by the name of accounts.
When you are asking this House to consider an expenditure of £45,000,000 and you read those two remarks, no language of mine can be strong enough to condemn the people who are in charge of that organisation.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans),
who deserves thanks for having instituted the Lawrence Committee, spoke of the cost of accounting two years ago as being £1,900,000 and somewhere about £800,000 to-day. The cost to-day is £961,068. If the Under-Secretary would like to know how I arrive at my figures, on page 166 is shown the cost of the Royal Army Pay Corps, £431,500, and on page 29 is shown the cost of the Corps of Military Accountants, £215,600. Add, from page 30, the cost of civilians, £31,100, making the total cost of the C.M.A. £246,700. On page 251 you find the financial staff of the War Office, £154,484, and on page 262 it gives the Department of the Finance Member, £34,774. On page 252, there is also the Finance staff on out-stations, £103,610. That is how I arrive at my total. On page 10 of the Estimates the number of men on the establishment of the Army is shown at 157,500, so that accounting in the Army to-day costs each soldier per annum £6 2s. I spent a few hours last week looking at the Army Estimates of 50 years ago. The strength of the Army then was 82 per cent. of the present Army, the whole Estimates amounted to 30 per cent. of the present Estimates and the accountancy cost 14s. 10d. per man per annum, or only 12 per cent. of what it costs to-day, and I question very much if the accounts were then kept much worse than they are to-day. If tenders were invited for looking after the accountancy of the War Office, any city firm of repute could tender for £500,000, which is a saving of £450,000, and the firm tendering would then make a profit of £100,000. Of that I have not the least doubt, and the work would be done very much better. The Lawrence Report has dealt with decentralisation of the unit. That is really the most important part of the Committee's recommendations. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester said, difficulties will be placed in the way of getting these recommendations through by gentlemen whose interests will not be served by getting them through. You have one recommendation, an extremely difficult one to carry out, one that I myself recommended a year ago, the amalgamation of the Pay Corps with the Corps of Military Accountants. The difficulty we have is this. The Pay Corps is the older body. I find it has nine colonels as against one in the Corps of
Military Accountants, 34 lieutenant-colonels as against five, 15 majors as against 10, 73 captains as against 94, and 41 subalterns, a total of 172 against 110, and mostly senior officers. In the Pay Corps you have, I think, five qualified accountants out of 172, and in the Corps of Military Accountants you have, out of 110, 60 either chartered or incorporated accountants. The point, in other words, is that in the amalgamation you are going to find a highly qualified man with a junior rank having to serve under a dud with a high rank. That is your difficulty. I call him a dud because he has been proved a dud over and over again. He is a gentleman. I say nothing about that. I am simply talking about finance, and it is no use calling him by gentlemanly names when you do not mean it. It is very interesting indeed to read the evidence given before the Select Committee on Public Accounts by the late Joint Secretary to the War Office on the financal side. His evidence is rather illuminating. I want to drive this home. The evidence I am trying to bring before the House I want to be so strong that there can be no excuse whatever for this Government not carrying through the suggestions of the Lawrence Report. That is my whole point, and I cannot make my case too strong. On the question of amalgamation, the joint Permanent Secretary of the War Office was asked a question. He said:
I should inform the Committee that as soon as this scheme is something more than an experiment and is definitely approved, my intention is to amalgamate the paymasters who keep the cash accounts with these accountants who keep the accounts, and in that way we shall get very considerable reductions of expenditure, because there is undoubtedly a certain amount of overlapping between the duties of the two staffs.
Not a word this afternoon from the Secretary of State for War as to what recommendations he was going to carry through. I do not want to be too unkind to the present Secretary of State for War, but I would point out that it was nearly five months before the Army Council considered the Report after it came out. That is not progress as we want to know it to-day.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Major Attlee): Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that the
present Government is to blame for that?

Lieut.-Colonel HODGE: I said, first of all, that I did not want to be unkind to the present Government or the present Secretary of State for War. The next thing I said was that it was nearly five months from the time that the Report was issued to the date when it was considered by the Army Council. I did not apply any fault to the present Government. I went on to say that that is the sort of progress we would like to see altered, and I say that again. Turning once more to the evidence given by the Joint Permanent Secretary to the Select Committee on Public Accounts, I would point out that the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) asked:
Why cannot this be done now?
Because the amalgamation of two military corps interferes with the prospects of everybody in the service. When I come to amalgamate the one hundred accountants who keep these accounts and the two hundred or more paymasters who keep the cash, I shall interfere in a very serious way indeed with the professional prospects on the faith of which these men have come into public service. If it has to be done, it has to be done, but I cannot do it as an experiment.
That is a very poor reason for keeping back economies which are going to save this country many hundreds of thousands of pounds a year—the careers of a few officers, men who never had a career. That is the sort of reason which I hope will not be accepted by any future Accounts Committee if it is trotted out as a reason for not causing the amalgamation to take place.
Last year I referred to the local audit staff, and I then said that that staff ought to be abolished, that it was costing a great deal of money, that if it were abolished we would save much money, and that the work the staff was doing was a mere duplication of work which was already well done by the military authorities. The report speaks of uneconomical methods, and goes on to say:
In the course of investigations made on behalf of the sub-committee, the following points, involving unnecessary duplication or other waste of effort, were observed: (a), (b), (c). (d), (e), (f), and (g).
I submit that on the question of duplication we do not need any more evidence. These gentlemen have to be swept away,
no matter what it costs. We have poor ex-service men complaining that their services are being dispensed with, yet there are people at head offices like the War Office who slither themselves in and stay there and you never can get them out.
I should like to say something of a class of men in the Pay Corps for whom I have always had profound respect. I refer to the men who got a commission from the ranks, in other words, the Assistant Paymasters. When you visit a Pay Office and call upon the Colonel the first thing he does is to call out "Sergeant Major." When the sergeant-major comes, the Colonel says, "Send Lieutenant so-and-so here," "Lieutenant so-and-so" being the Assistant Paymaster. These Assistant Paymasters are the cream of the Department. There is no question about that; there can be no two opinions about it. You cannot get on without them. Yet these men can never rise higher than the rank of captain, notwithstanding their knowledge and all the work they put in. Why? Mr. Under-Secretary, I ask you to note the reason. The reason is that, being rankers, they are never supposed to have money in their hands. When one remembers that the officers who get into the Pay Corps get there for the reason that they are hard up, one can see the inconsitency of the whole matter. I hope that a Labour Government will take in hand that particular question. These men regard it as a deep insult to their characters that they should never be able to rise beyond the rank of captain. I hope that will be put right.
About three weeks ago a question was put to the Secretary of State for War by the hon. and gallant Member for Salisbury (Major Moulton) as to how much money had been proveo to be lost to the public during the three years ending 31st December. 1923, by reason of misappropriation of Army money? The answer was that the loss amounted to about £38,000. That answer was rather a petulant one, I thought, having regard to these perpetual questions about chartered accountants. Can there be any surprise that questions about chartered accountants should be perpetual? I want to refer to the Army accounts for 1921–22, and to draw attention to the actual amount of money lost to the public. On page 169 we find that the
losses during 1921–22, due wholly or in part to theft, fraud, arson, or gross negligence, amounted to £830,059; due to causes other than these, £1,077,180; and due to incidents of the Service, £544,179. That is a total of £2,471,412. There was lost to the Army during the War period and prior to the 31st March, 1920, £181,050; during the year 1920–21 the amount was £1,313,414; during the year 1921–22 the amount was £973,950, so that in the four years after the War no less than £2,287,864 was lost owing to the three instances which I have given.
Following on page 169 of the Army Accounts for 1921–22, there are 26 pages with details as to how this money was lost. I have analysed them and I find that faulty accounting is given as the reason for £193,542 and Pay Office inefficiency £201,632. In other words, general inefficiency and general had accountancy have cost the country £395,174 up to last year. I think that I have said enough to indicate that the country will be satisfied with nothing less than the early carrying out of the suggestions contained in the Lawrence Report. If a man takes these Army Accounts and puts on top of them the Lawrence Report, as to how the Army is administered, he will come to the conclusion, in my opinion, that the financial administration of the War Office is one of the greatest scandals of modern history.
Hon. Members opposite of late have been asking the President of the Board of Trade frequently for an inquiry as to why we are losing contracts. The taxation of the country to-day is due to the sort of thing to which I have been referring, for by adding to the cost of production it is one of the main reasons why manufacturers cannot sell their goods. I apologise to the House for having taken up so much time, but I am anxious that the Government, having done well enough to get this Report through, should go further and face the necessity of carrying through these suggestions one by one. I believe that in the course of the next 12 months a clean £500,000 could be saved if these men would at once get down to their jobs. I hope that they will insist on the formation at once of this Committee—they have got a terrific job—to carry out these recommendations. In the constituencies we preach economy. We also do it in this House. Let us carry it
out. If I have detained the House for a half hour in making definite references and definite charges as to instances in which economies can be effected I do it for no other reason than to help the Government, in the expectation that they will carry through these reforms.

Brigadier-General MAKINS: In rising to take part in this Debate, as an ex-service Member I would like first to say that, whatever the opinion of hon. Members opposite may be, we in the Army realise that in the person of the present Minister for War we have a friend on whom we can rely and who will not let us down. I would ask him whether there is any co-ordination between the War Office and the great industrial organisations, and whether in reference to armaments and numbers of men, and arms and equipment, the immense possibilities of certain industries and civil undertakings to provide for military requirements at short notice and on a large scale in time of war are generally considered? Under this heading I include civil air service and the dyeing and chemical industries, in respect of which we had most striking examples during the late War from the Germans. If we are to consider these possibilities, I am inclined to think that something might be done by way of paying a subsidy in certain cases to keep in existence plant which otherwise would be scrapped, so as to have all in order, should the occasion arise, for the provision of such things as gas and high explosives.
The Army Estimates show that the reasons affecting the shortage of supply, in the case of both officers and men, are very much the same. It is security of tenure which is required. The Army must be a profession which the parent and the lad can look on as something which will give them some prospects in the future. With regard to officers, we have had a certain amount of assurance. The same arguments apply to the rank and file. I believe that there might be some reconstruction as to the term of service. Before the War, nearly 90 per cent. of the men who joined the Army did so because they could not get work, and, to a great extent, owing to lack of food. The remainder were generally men who were the sons of old soldiers or who wanted to see the world, and who had the spirit of adventure. Now conditions are altered, because of the unemployment
pay which is given. When men receive that money they will be unwilling to surrender their independence and submit to Army discipline. Even before the War there was never a very brilliant look-out for the seven and five year men.
The Army has never had a better chance than now of being up to strength, with all this vast amount of unemployment, and yet sufficient recruits are not forthcoming. The White Paper states that the recruiting of the Regular Army during the current year has not been entirely satisfactory. Will it be more so during the coming year, when trade recovers, if it does recover? At the beginning of the financial year the total strength of the Regular Army was approximately 5,500 below establishment, which is a considerable number considering the size of our Army. The Army Reserve shows an increase over the preceding year, for it seems doubtful whether it can be satisfactorily brought up to strength. Even if, as is suggested, it is held that some further growth will be secured during the coming year by allowing a certain number of men in the ranks to complete their remaining Colour service in the Reserve service, will there be sufficient men to take their places in the first line? After all, it is the man that counts, and we are getting to an age of mechanical warfare when we want thoroughly trained men who will be able to use that mechanism. We cannot improvise an Army as we have done in the past.
Another point relates to the terms of enlistment of the private soldier. On enlistment a man has to serve the Sovereign so long as his services are required within the period for which he agrees to serve. Consequently the Crown always has a right to discharge a soldier. He can be discharged under King's Regulations for being medically unfit, for misconduct, or as unlikely to become an efficient soldier. That is all very proper. But in addition he can be discharged because his services are no longer required on reduction of establishment. There is a great lack of security in that, and it might be reconsidered. A contract should be made a contract, and a man should not feel that if he joins the Service there is some likelihood of his being discharged on reduction of establishment. Of course, there may be other reasons for the short.
age There is, to a great extent, war weariness after a long and bloody war, but I do not think there is so much in that now, because the War is five years behind us, it is becoming a historical fact, and the young fellows that are coming on now should be quite fresh and full of enthusiasm, and that war weariness should not have any effect. When a man joins the Army he should rest assured that there is a real future before him, and that he has a career. The short service man might very well be allowed to count his service for pension just as he would be allowed to do so if he entered the Civil Service.
As to the Reserve, could we not replenish it to a great extent by men, now out of work, who are physically fit and have war service to their credit? We know where we can put our hands on them, and could give them their 12 days' training, and so bring them up to date. I wish also to ask whether we advertise the Army as we ought to do. I often wonder whether we do that enough. Are there enough posters showing the advantages which the Army offers? Do the people realise that, if a man joins the infantry, before he has passed his drills at the end of a week he has nearly £1 in his pocket after everything is found? That compares very favourably with any branch of the unskilled labour market. I asked someone in this House the other day whether he had seen a recruiting sergeant lately. I have not seen one for many years. The advertising of the Army might be a little more extensive than it is. The whole point of view with regard to the Army has to be altered. We have to make it as much a career as any other profession, and we shall never do this until we treat our ex-service men fairly, and guarantee to men who leave the Army, relatively early in life, some opening in civil life, and prevent the abject spectacle of the old soldier on the streets with barely enough on which to live.

9.0 P.M.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: Although I have some criticisms to make on Army administration, I hope that it is not out of place for me to say that I feel convinced that the right hon. Gentleman who introduced these Estimates has not only the interests of the Army at heart, but
that the great Service of which he is the head is in safe keeping in his hands. I think I am speaking for Service Members on all sides, when I say that we all have a feeling that the right hon. Gentleman will know how to defend the Service if it is attacked unfairly from any quarter. The criticisms that I have to make are not aimed at the Army itself, but are made rather in the hope of making good certain defects and bringing to light certain facts in themselves detrimental to the efficiency of the Army. A few days ago I put to the Secretary for War a question. I asked him whether he would make a statement as to the purpose for which our Army was being organised, whether it was with a view to possible intervention on the Continent, whether colonial warfare alone was being envisaged, or whether it was being organised purely for home defence. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman was that now, as before, the British Army was being organised with a view to the military defence of the Empire, wherever the necessity for action might unhappily arise.
The impression intended to be left on my mind by that answer was that the Army was ready to meet any emergency. Here I must join issue with the right hon. Gentleman. I hold, and I hope to prove, that the Army is in a far worse position than it was before the War, from the point of view of possible intervention on the Continent, from the point of view of colonial warfare, and from the point of view of home defence; further, that the cost of administration is out of all proportion to the Army's numbers. It may be said, of course, that the likelihood of intervention on the Continent is remote. Certainly nobody hopes so more devoutly than I do. But the right hon. Gentleman himself does not rule out this possibility, as his answer to me shows, and as was borne out by his speech this afternoon. I rather gathered from that speech that he did not feel quite so confident now as he felt at the time when he made that answer to me a few days ago. If it be accepted that our fighting forces are much reduced, it certainly will be agreed that our Army ought to make up what it lacks in strength by extraordinary efficiency and the utmost use of scientific and mechanical invention. Also the question of expansion ought to be most carefully considered. In theory, the
Minister is in agreement with this, but in practice, does our Army fulfil these conditions? I very much fear it does not.
Everybody knows what fearful weapons were developed during the last War and what appalling losses were sustained in attacking fortified positions. If there is one lesson which stands out with particular clearness from the last War it is that the best infantry in the world will suffer fearful loss if attacking positions held by even indifferent infantry with a sufficient number of machine guns. The lesson we ought to deduce is that our infantry ought not to be used to attack these positions at all. It should be considered as the garrison of positions, and as it is necessary to drive the enemy from positions if you mean to win battles you ought to attack those positions with artillery and tanks and the infantry ought to move up afterwards to hold and occupy those positions. That I submit is what we ought to aim at. In other words, I suggest we should aim at rapidly moving infantry—caterpillars and lorries—in conjunction with powerful artillery and a great number of tanks, which would assault the positions to be occupied and held by the infantry. Such is the most intelligent use for any army and it certainly is the only intelligent use which can be made of a very small army such as ours. Is our Army trained and organised on those lines? I very much fear it is not, and if it is not then we shall have the disaster of 1914 all over again, and in a very few weeks after the declaration of a war practically the whole of our Expeditionary Force will be wiped out. If the War Office conception is to base itself on attacking positions with infantry or if its artillery, machine guns and tanks are deficient, this will inevitably be the case.
It may not be out of place to see what other countries are doing in this matter. I have taken as a basis of comparison the French Army, because it is the most efficient army on the Continent to-day. The French Army is evolving, whereas the lessons of the War seem to have made extraordinarily little impression upon our own War Office. If ever there was a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth it is to be found here. Take the case of the cavalry. Our cavalry is exactly the same as it was before the War, save that a few machine guns have been
added. What is the case with the French cavalry? A French cavalry division has ceased to be called a cavalry division at all, and has become a light division, and the horse is merely a means of transport from place to place. In other words, the French cavalry has become mounted infantry. A French cavalry division or light division now consists of three brigades of two regiments reinforced by heavy and light machine guns; two brigades of field artillery; one brigade of howitzers, which will be added eventually; one cyclist battalion; three squadrons of 12 armoured cars each, and one squadron of aeroplanes. On mobilisation, heavy artillery and tanks will be added to the light division. That is what the French have done, but in the six years that have elapsed since the War our cavalry seems to have gradually relapsed into the state in which it was before the War. The French cavalry has developed into a formidable instrument which is capable of the greatest results in the hands of any capable commander. Our cavalry, in spite of the lessons of the War, remains an instrument almost entirely useless under the conditions which obtain in modern warfare.
How are we off for artillery? I understand, as far as peace-time equipment is concerned, we have practically the same equipment as the French, but where we are terribly short as compared with them is in the matter of reserves. The French consider that, taking the forces in the field as a whole, it is necessary to have at least 150 guns to a division. I am perfectly certain we have not anything like that number, and I should like to hear some statement from either the Minister or the Under-Secretary on this matter. In view of the thousands of guns which must have gone out of use when the Army was demobilised, I should like to have the right hon. Gentleman's assurance on this point and to ask him whether or not this is the case, and, if so, if he will see that the deficiency is made good. As regards heavy artillery, I reckon we have somewhere about 40 heavy guns for our first three divisions. The French for a similar number of troops would have at least 100 guns, or 2½ times as many. If this is the fact, is it fair to refuse to afford to our own men the protection which the French are prepared to afford
to theirs? I should also like to ask what provision has been made for reserves of heavy artillery and reserves of munitions. As to tanks, we have four battalions and the French have 40. I believe the Territorial Army has no tanks at all, in the same way as it has no heavy artillery, which it needs if it is to light at all.
I wish to know what means have we of expanding our tank battalions on mobilisation. The French Tank Corps has a reserve of machines and men. Again, what about mechanically transported artillery? We heard the Minister announce with some pride that one brigade had been experimented with successfully, and another brigade was going to be introduced. It seemed to the right hon. Gentleman to be a great discovery, but meanwhile the French have 13 regiments of this particular form of artillery, and it appears to be incredible that this form of artillery, whose usefulness was established beyond question during the War, should not have been sufficiently developed. The fire power of our infantry seems to be good, but over and above the infantry formations would it not be wise to examine whether we ought not to have battalions of machine guns. The French Army has 12 such battalions, and I am certain the number would be doubled or even trebled in case of mobilisation. It is surely worth while considering whether our Army should not possess a similar formation which means such additional strength and saving in man power. I have taken the French as the basis of comparison, not only because they have the best Army but because they have the same problems as we have in the matter of colonial war. Cater-pillers or "dragons" and tractors are used by them very largely in connection with the transport of artillery. One thing we must remember is that if tractor-drawn transport of artillery is useful, and even necessary in Europe, it is far more important in countries where there are no roads.
That seems obvious to me, and it would be the most utter folly to contend that because our Army is likely to be used mainly for colonial warfare, we should not make use of these mechanical inventions. I believe that in advancing this I am in full agreement with our own Staff College. You might as well say that the French had no need to use tanks because
they were bordered by the Alps and the Pyrenees. The smaller our Army, the more use we should make of machinery, and surely, as long as we have an Army at all, it is our duty to see that everything is done to protect our men. Troops may be engaged in distant countries, where the ground is broken and difficult, and the more transport by "caterpillars" we possess the more rapidly will those particular operations be terminated. If we cannot use one weapon, we can use another, and if, in the last resort, our infantry has to attack with little support from the artillery and mechanical devices, owing to difficult country, it will go in and drive the enemy out as it has always done before, but that is no reason, and would be no excuse, for not having afforded our men every help and every defence known to modern science. We cannot accept that our infantry should not be as adequately provided for as that of any Army in the world, and surely this House considers the lives of its soldiers as well worth protecting as those of any nation in the world.
As for the Army itself, how does it compare with that which we had in 1914? I fear that the comparison is as unsatisfactory as I have shown the comparison in regard to equipment to be. In 1914 we had six infantry divisions and two cavalry divisions, mobilisable in three weeks, with a Regular Reserve at full strength, and behind these a Special Reserve, also at full establishment, and a Territorial Army of 14 Divisions and a cavalry division. What have we in 1924? We have four infantry divisions and a cavalry division, and a fifth division is, I understand, mobilisable on declaration of war, and our Regular Reserve is, we are told, much below establishment. The old Special Reserve has disappeared, and all that has taken its place is a Supplementary Reserve, which only aims at providing us with technical units and additional officers for the fighting services. Nominally, the Territorial Army still consists of 14 divisions and a cavalry division, but I believe these to be so much below strength as not to be mobilisable at all unless there were a rush of men enlisting on an emergency arising. In other words, if there were an emergency which called for our Expeditionary Force to be sent abroad, I think I am
right in saying that we could not send more than half the infantry we sent abroad in 1914 in the same space of time.
I do not think that is a, particularly satisfactory result for an Army that is costing us £17,000,000 more than did the Army of 1914, and the truth is that the situation is even worse than it appears. In 1914, not only did our Army have full reserves, but it had a fairly well-armed Territorial Army, according to the knowledge we then possessed. Now, deficient as is the Regular Army in this respect, the Territorial Army is, I believe, not only not mobilisable owing to lack of men, but completely lacking in those weapons which would enable it to meet on equal terms any civilised foe. It is better to have no troops at all than to make believe that you have a force worth reckoning with, when such is not the case. I think the House will agree with me that these facts, as I have given them, reveal a very serious state of things, and I should like to press the representative of the War Office to make a statement at the first opportunity and, if the facts are as I have stated them, to assure the House that these deficiencies will be made good; and I should like to ask whether he still maintains that the Army is capable of dealing with any emergency that may arise.
Finally, I want to say a word about the War Office. The Secretary of State has given some reasons for the increased cost of the War Office. The Army has been cut to the bone. It is less numerous and much less efficient than it was before the War, but the War Office has managed to thrive and increase while the Army has dwindled. In 1914 there were 1,300 people in the War Office; to-day there are 2,600. It is a very striking fact that whilst the total of the whole Army to-day, including Reservists, Territorials, etc., is 450,000, much smaller than in 1914, when the figure was 720,000, the War Office is double the size and costs 125 per cent. more. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister, too, to the fact that the French War Office of about 1,300 people has to administer a standing army of nearly 700,000 men, which compares very unfavourably with our own War Office, which has 2,600 people to administer a standing army of 160,000 men—a War Office twice as big to administer an Army a quarter the size.
There are, in addition to the figures I have given for the French War Office, some 600 military clerks, which I have not counted in that total, but I have not counted, either, the 2,000 people who, in out-stations, also help to administer our War Office. The Secretary of State urged that this large increase in the War Office was to some extent justified by the fact that we had these wonderful new developments in mechanical warfare. I hope that I have at least proved that it is not the case, and that the French Army, which is far more developed in this way than is our own, manages to be administered by a far smaller staff; and it should not be forgotten, either, that the French War Office has to deal with dilapidations, with requisitions for building, and so on, because the War was fought on the soil of France, while our War Office has never had, thank goodness, anything of that sort to deal with. I am personally persuaded that the greatest increase and extravagance is on the civilian side of the War Office, and I have no hesitation in saying that I am convinced that the civilian personnel of the War Office could be reduced by 50 per cent. without any loss of efficiency whatever.

Mr. LANSBURY: We could get money for the rankers in that way.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: In this connection, I was glad to see that the Lawrence Committee has recommended in its Report an amalgamation of the Army Pay Corps and the Corps of Accountants, a reform which was much pressed in this House last year, and one which would undoubtedly lead to great economies in administration. It is quite clear that the War Office is too large. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will insist on a reduction of these ridiculous overhead charges, and see that the Army is administered in proportion to its size. I gather that the Weir Committee considered that the necessary economies could only be effected by complete reorganisation. This completely meets my view. There seems to be no reason why this reorganisation should not take place as soon as possible.

Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: I listened with great interest to the very illuminating speech which has just been made by the hon. and gallant Member. I
am only sorry that the Secretary of State for War and the Under-Secretary are absent, and have not heard that speech. I hope however the Financial Secretary will bring it to their special consideration. I entirely agree that our Army has been reduced far too much for safety. Look at the Memorandum the War Office has issued! On page 5 the first thing we notice is that the present Army is 5,500 men below establishment. The next sentence goes on to say that
much will remain to be done in the way of building up the Army Reserve before it will be adequate to mobilise the whole of the expeditionary force of one cavalry division and five divisions.
Before the War we had six divisions all ready to start, as the hon. Member said, in three weeks. Will the Financial Secretary tell us if we have one division which we could send abroad in three weeks? I ask that question particularly. Can he send one division abroad in three weeks, and in how many weeks can he send a second division? I put this question, and I hope he will reply, because we want to know exactly how we stand in our present state. Now we hear of a new supplementary reserve, and on the next page of this memorandum—page 6—it is stated that this supplementary reserve is to be formed on a militia basis. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans) as to the extraordinary name the War Office has given to that reserve. Who on earth wants to join a supplementary reserve? Remember, we were told after demobilisation after the War that the militia was to be reformed. Here you have a supplementary reserve formed on a militia basis. What is the meaning of this? The militia, to my mind, is the most important thing we have to think of. I welcomed the idea of a militia, because, as the Financial Secretary may remember, we were told that the Army was to be reformed on the supposition that there would be no great Continental war for ten years. On that assumption the next endeavour was made to raise a Territorial Army. Remember that the Territorial Army is for the defence of these shores against foreign invasion, and that we were told it was not possible to have a foreign invasion within ten years. Why then spend so much of our time on a Territorial Army? We want men available
for foreign service in any part of the Empire to which they may be called. It is far more important to have men available for foreign service than men only available for home service. I am glad to see we make this small beginning, and I ask the Financial Secretary to put before the Army Council how important it is to have more men available for foreign service than we have at the present moment.
There is another question. A little further on we have the question of the shortage of officers. I would especially ask that the old practice of giving commissions to Territorial officers, which existed before the War, should now be brought in. I think a certain percentage of commissions should be held out to give Territorial officers, well reported from their commanding officers, a chance of getting permanent commissions in the Regular Army, when they are recommended for them. I hope this will be taken into consideration and that the Territorial Army will be thrown open as it was before the War. The question of a supply of officers depends on a great many things, and I am glad the Financial Secretary is here, because in his charge is the payment of the officers of the Army. One important point I would bring to his notice is that the married allowance given to the officers in this country is not paid to officers when they are sent abroad to India. That must be altered if we are to get the supply of officers we need. It is not fair to send a man off to India and put him on less pay. I brought the question to the notice of the Secretary of State for India the other day, and I gave him particulars to show, that the married captain gets £22 less a year in India than at home, and the married subaltern of reserve seven years' service loses £68. The quartermasters lose in every grade and the married warrant officers and non-commissioned officers and the men lose respectively £48, £20 and £16 a year each. I ask, is it fair to send men to serve abroad when they lose this pay? I do not ask that the married allowance may be given and arrangements made with the India Office that a marriage allowance should be given to the officers and men there on the same scale as at home.
Similar cases arose with the air forces. I put a question to the Air
Minister, and he had to acknowledge to me that the married flight lieutenant, who gets £68 in Egypt, goes down to £59 in India. Is that fair? I bring these things to the hon. Member's notice because we cannot expect service in the Army to be popular when men are subject to this great loss of pay. Finally, I would draw attention to another matter—the statement on page 12 of the Estimates regarding the strength of the British troops in India. The Memorandum states that one of the cavalry regiments, not required in India, is to be sent to Palestine. Why "not required"? The whole of our British troops in India—I am not talking of the men—has been reduced to 57,000. The whole strength is 57,000 men. India is just the same size as Europe without Russia. It has far more different countries and races than the Continent of Europe, and could we go and rule the Continent of Europe with 57,000 men? The whole thing is impossible. I would ask the Financial Secretary to tell me—for there is no one else here to tell me—what is the proportion of native to British troops now, and how does it compare with what it hsed to be. I believe that the native troops in India will be really loyal to England, but what we have to have in mind is possible revolution and rebellion. What have we seen in the papers during the last few days? Note the telegrams from India in the last day or two. I read in a telegram from Delhi that Mr. Patel in the Legislative Assembly—
frankly admitted that their plan was to make the Government govern by certification, and that the Swarajists' next step would be mass agitation, followed by civil disobedience and non-payment of taxes.
Then there was a speech by another man, Pandit Malaviva, who, criticising the military expenditure, demanded the disbandment of the British troops maintained for internal security. When we have that going on is it safe to reduce the army in India to 57,000 men? We may have mass agitation and civil disobedience and any sort of revolution at any time. Could you now send one division out to India if a rebellion arose in three weeks? That is the point we have to consider. I honestly say I am bringing this to the notice of the hon. Member, for it seems to me that our defence forces are far below the margin of safety at the present
time. I do trust that this question may be taken into consideration. I have only mentioned these few cases; but these points I do put before the Financial Secretary. I trust he will take them into consideration, and that he will be able to give me some satisfactory answer.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: As one who is bitterly opposed to war and all its horrors, and as a supporter of the Labour party, I regret very much that the War Minister is unable to reduce these Estimates by a greater sum than he appears to have done. I am very much surprised that we should have to raise the point in this House—but I am surprised at the class of men that have been put in positions like that of the War Minister. Look at the Labour War Minister—one of the meekest and mildest men at the head of the most bloodthirsty Department of the State. Take, too, the first right hon. Gentleman who replied to the Minister for War, the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans). He is one of the most genial men to be found in this House. I venture to suggest that when the Labour Minister for War goes home at night and looks in his mirror he will not be able to recognise Stephen Walsh! I said I regret the Estimates are so high. I am surprised, because I know nothing at all of the difference of the services in the British Army. I have been listening this afternoon to men who represent the different arms, one man the cavalry, the other the artillery, the other the infantry, and others the different branches of the Army. It is, however, a very strange thing that we should be arguing about the cavalry and the artillery and not one hon. Member has mentioned poison gas! Why should you require an increase in the Army? If we understand the greatest authorities rightly, they hold that the next war is going to be one where whole tracts of country, with the people in those tracts, will be destroyed by poison gas. If that is the case what is the use of increasing your Army? I do not see any use at all in it.
What I want to know is: How is our Army placed so far as a supply of poison gas is concerned? Can hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench who represent the Army assure us that at least our poison gas is as dangerous as that of any other country? Are we to understand now that
we can take our supplies down to the nearest point to France, and, if the wind be favourable, be able to kill half the people in France by one discharge of our poison gas? It is quite true that, if the wind blew the other way, the French might return the compliment and destroy half of the British people, but, again, the day following, we might again return the compliment and destroy all the French people, and still have some of our own population left. I want to know from those in authority, if it is the case that the next great war is to be carried on with poison gas, what arrangements are being made by the Minister of War to train the civil population in the use of gas masks. The thing is very important. I quite understand that many hon. Members on both sides of the House will at that time have some planks to get on, but the average person will be placed in a very dangerous position. I say that provision will be made to meet the condition of things, but that certain hon. Members, as usual, will see to it that they will be protected, while other people will have to do the suffering. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]

Lieut.-Colonel Sir PAGE CROFT: May I ask if the hon. Gentleman can give a single case where in the late War any provision was made for giving to a single class any advantage which was not given to the other classes?

Mr. HENDERSON: My hon. Friend beside me has answered that question, and I am not going to. What is the War Minister going to do in regard to having organised gas-mask drill for the civil population of this country? I am quite sure of this, that you may make any arrangements you like through the League of Nations or by any other method, but once war breaks out the conditions laid down will be broken, as they were broken in the late War. Recognising that fact I want to see some protection given to the masses of the people, and I want the War Minister, much as I regret the necessity for such a small decrease, to tell me what they are going to do in a case of that kind.

Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: I very strongly resent the remark which has just fallen from the lips of the last speaker. If he had had any experience in France during the War I am sure that
he would have known perfectly well that the private soldier received exactly the same facilities for protection from gas as anyone else, and I consider the remarks which he made—

Mr. HENDERSON: I never said anything like that. I referred to the civilian population.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I rose to say a few words with regard to the Territorial Army. The Secretary of State for War referred very eulogistically to the services which can be and were being rendered by the Territorial Force. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman is not in his place, because I was anxious to place before him one or two suggestions with regard to the efficiency of that Force and with a view to improving it. The first suggestion I have to make is with regard to the annual camp. I think that permanent camps should be established in suitable parts of the country which are not, so to speak, to be taken up at the end of every camping season. What happens at the present time is that a suitable site for a camp is selected, and you make every arrangement for its occupation by infantry, artillery or cavalry. That entails the laying down of a water supply in many cases. Many miles of pipe have to be laid to supply the water, and no sooner is a fortnight's camping over than, in the majority of cases, all these water pipes are taken up again at a very great cost to the country.
A case which I have in mind happened the year before last at a divisional camping ground which was established at a cost approximately of £4,000. That camp was used for a fortnight, and at the end of that time the whole of the pipes and arrangements for the water service were taken up, and £4,000 of the taxpayers' money was practically lost to the country. This is going on year after year, and I suggest that if we purchased the land, and this could be done at no very great cost, we should save these additional annual expenses of organising and laying down the arrangements for these camps. This would effect very considerable economy, and there would be the additional advantage that one would know where they were going to, and we should have less difficulty in getting our men to attend the camps. The next suggestion I have to make is also in regard to camps—I refer to the Easter
camps. A very large number of battalions have camps at Easter, and there is an extraordinary regulation in force that if any musketry training is done there the men do not receive any pay. If any musketry training takes place in order to improve a man's efficiency he at once automatically loses his pay.
At Easter the evenings and the days are long, and it is quite impossible to keep the men on active training the whole time. As a rule, we start at 8 o'clock, and by 3 o'clock one will have done as much drill and route marching as it is possible to do, and there will be four or five hours daylight left which could very well be utilised on the range. But if we do that the men are deprived of any pay which they may earn, and I suggest that at these Easter camps musketry training should be allowed without the men forfeiting their pay. This would be a saving to the country and the War Office, because as things are at present, the men will have to make two journeys down to the range, the War Office paying their fares, whereas if this training were allowed to be done at the Easter camps the nation would be saved the expense of a quadruple journey to the range and back. By altering the existing Regulation a very considerable saving in money could be made without in any way sacrificing the efficiency of the unit.
The last suggestion I have to make deals simply with the clothing of the unit. As a good many people know, it is not a very easy thing to keep up the numbers of the Territorial Force, especially in London. Some of us think that if it were possible to give them a more attractive dress for walking out in the evenings it might, and probably would, be easier to keep these units up to their establishment. The suggestion put to the War Office, and which has been turned down, is that a cap corresponding to the one issued to the Guards should be also issued to the Territorial Force for walking out purposes. Arrangements could be made so that no great expense would be incurred to the country, because this is a suggestion by which this coloured cap could be made to take the place of the khaki cap which is issued every three years. If that could be done no great cost would be incurred, and some of us feel that we should have less difficulty in maintaining our units at their proper strength. I hope the Under-Secretary
will put those suggestions forward, because I have had consultations with a great many people who are supposed to be well informed on these subjects, and they agree with me that the cost would be infinitesimal, and the advantage to the Corps might be very great.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I want to put one or two questions to the Secretary of State. My first question is in regard to Supplementary Reserve, which is to cost them £500,000 and is to consist of 350,000 men. In this Estimate I see that there are 2,158 officers to be attached to the Territorial battalions, and if that is so will they not be rather left in the air, and there will be no esprit de corps. I see that 7,900 men are to be trained. Could not these men be formed into some kind of battalions after the form of the old Special Reserve in order that they might be given some kind of esprit de corps. Under present arrangements they are very much left to themselves, and this is not an arrangement which is likely to prove attractive to the officers. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Melton (Sir C. Yate) drew attention to the strength of the Army in India. That has been reduced in the present year from 71,109 to 61,964. Has that reduction been made with the full consent of the Commander-in-Chief in India? The Secretary of State for War, in answer to a question I put to him the other day, said the British cavalry in India had been reduced from nine regiments to six. What has happened to those six? So far as I can make out from the Army Estimates, two regiments have come home and one has gone to Palestine. Is that one in Palestine going to remain there permanently as a garrison, are barracks to be built there for them, and on whom does the charge of those three regiments which have been brought from India fall at the present time? They used to belong to, and were on the strength and in the pay of, the Indian Government. I fully realise the Army accounted for nearly one half of that Budget, and that they were very anxious to get rid of a certain number of troops, but have they thrown, at the present time, the whole of the expense on to the War Office Estimates? Besides that, the artillery in India has been reduced by over 1,000.
Does that mean each battery has been reduced by a few men, or that a whole brigade of artillery has been brought over? The infantry in India has been reduced by 5,500 British troops. Are they battalions which have been brought home, or a few men from each battalion? Then the signal corps has been reduced by 1,000. Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give us an explanation as to whether the whole of the charge has been thrown on the War Office Estimates, and whether it has been done with the full consent of the Commander-in-Chief in India?
10.0 P.M.
There is another point in the Army Estimates which rather puzzles me. Why do Mauritius, Ceylon, Hong Kong, and the Straits Settlements pay contributions for the upkeep of the garrisons, whereas Bermuda, Malta, Jamaica and Sierra Leone pay nothing? Why should one pay a contribution and not the other? Why should Hong Kong pay a contribution and not Malta? Why should Ceylon, and yet Jamaica, a rich island, pay nothing? That is a little point I would like to put to the War Office for information. I see in the Estimates that the Germans are to pay £1,250,000 for the upkeep of the British Army at Cologne. How are they raising that money? Is it by requisitions, or is it purely an estimate they hope they may get, and see very small promise of fulfilment? As the Secretary of State said, and we on this side all fully agree, our Army is not aggressive or Imperialistic in any form or sense. It is purely for our protection. It is our police force, and when we realise that we have no less than one-fifth of the world to protect, and a population of over 400,000,000, I think an Army of 209,000 is a very small force indeed to look after those populations. We are responsible for those people, and for the defence of those countries, and should we reduce our Army by any large amount, we should be responsible for the fate of those countries. I feel quite sure that the General Staff is taking a careful interest in the happenings in the Near East. Great changes are taking place every day. We have seen the Caliph expelled from Constantinople, and there are more surprising things than a great revival of Mohammedan religion in the East. We may again see the Arab assert his forces. The House really has no idea of how the breath of religion can sweep
over the whole of the East. Now that the Caliph has left Constantinople, we may see a vast revival of Arab religion throughout the East, and I would ask those responsible for the strategic defence of our Empire to watch this matter most carefully, and as conditions and times change, so to change and keep up with those conditions. All that we desire on this side of the House is to see our British Army second to none in the world in its efficiency and in its training. It is not Imperialistic; it is not aggressive. It is purely for the protection of our Empire, and for that of our peoples to whom we are responsible. I feel quite confident that, in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, after the speech to which we have listened to-day, he is the first to take advantage of all those changes and new-conditions, and of all the inventions as they turn up, and, by doing so, he will uphold that reputation which we, and all of us who have fought in the Army, and I believe most of those in this House, desire to uphold, and that he will continue to carry on those traditions that we have always had in the British Army, and which we desire to see remain.

Mr. HARDIE: In dealing with the Army Estimates, it would seem that the serious part of the subject to-night has been that of dress. The first reference to the subject was that of the Secretary of State for War, who said that he was going to hand out free sporrans and spate. Then we had the last hon. Member pointing out the great advantages that will accrue from having a special walking-out attire. When the Secretary of State for War talked about handing out free sporrans and spats, there was one little thing he forgot, so far as the Scot is concerned, that is, he may have a great objection to knee breeks, while he may don plus fours, there is nothing can get a Scot into changing his national dress. The point between the sporran and the spat is this, that it is quite possible the Secretary of State for War may yet suggest that the sporran and the spat, so that they may not be lost, should be sewn together. That done, it would not only give a certain sense of security to public property, but would certainly ensure a certain amount of propriety on windy days. What struck me seriously in a discussion on the scientific methods of taking life is that every little detail for dealing out death is minutely
examined, and yet in this House, when anyone wants to examine in detail the better methods of increasing production as applied to industries we are looked upon as having bees in our bonnets. The last hon. Member who spoke referred to the necessity of the Army Department taking advantage of every invention. The divine gifts of God, passing through the vehicle of the brains of men and women, were sent to help the people of the world, but what do you do about applying inventions to industry? You want to nationalise every invention that is to improve war, but what do you do with inventions for civil life? If you go to your patent library you find the shelves there crowded with these things. There is no place makes me so sad as that library, except that it is a cemetery. There the gifts of the brain and of genius are locked away in the dust of time. The only inventions we hear about are the inventions to displace labour and increase profits.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Is, the hon. Member in order in referring to those inventions in civil life on the Army Estimates?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that so far anything he has said has called for my intervention.

Mr. HARDIE: And what about medical inventions? What does the Army do for them? Like other Members, I am always receiving letters with regard to medical boards. What about the supposed perfect science when you get often a dozen boards differing? What about the correctness of that science? Why has it not been applied in every case due to the late War? Getting back to invention, if it is right that every invention that is to improve death-dealing should be seized by the nation, why should not every invention be nationalised if it is to make our lives happier and more secure? The more you apply invention to industry the more you get away from what is called war to-day. You have long-distance guns spoken about on the coast of France. Questions were asked about them to-day. These guns may drop bombs perhaps on Mr. Speaker's Chair. They ask for "Long Toms" to be placed on our shores. Who knows? I do not hear from the benches opposite any enthusiasm for the application of genius and invention to industry to make homes better. What happened before the War?
The training of a chemist was then looked upon as something that was very doubtful. When the War came, the cry of the army men was, "Ah, we have been lax. We have not the chemists we ought to have, and we have not the engineers. And when the war is over we will see that our Estimates are big enough to include training to produce a sufficient number of skilled technical chemists and engineers." What is happening now? Your skilled chemists are only given a job if they can make something that is not butter look like butter, or by an injection of something into rotten meat make it look like fresh meat, or if they can produce something that increases profits and displaces labour. If you do not give way in face of science your ignorance will overtake you.
From the other side of the House we had a beautiful picture drawn of the good things that were to be got by training boys for the Services. Then we had the last speaker saying that we were not to have an army that was military; it was only to be a police force, but he added that it was to be second to none. How can you have an army that is second to none and expect other nations to remain in the second place? He knows that the very effort to be second to none is the impetus that gives the power to drive on to war in the world. Underlying all that has been said to-night is that fear in the heart of the man who knows that the first man to shoulder a gun is an enemy to the human race.

Sir H. CROFT: I hope the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not follow him in the various questions regarding invention to which he has referred, but I should like to make one or two observations in reference to what he said. First of all, he spoke somewhat sneeringly about what is called "walking-out dress," I think that, probably, most of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues know that "walking-out dress" is a very well-known term in the Army, and has been for very many years. After all, when men are serving in the Army, and when they have to have two suits of clothes, why, on earth, should not one of them be more attractive than the other?

Mr. HARDIE: I agree.

Sir H. CROFT: Then I will not pursue it further.

Mr. HARDIE: I would give them two suits.

Sir H. CROFT: The hon. Gentleman may rest satisfied that every soldier has two suits, and, since that is so, and it will involve no increase in cost, I do hope that something will be done in order that the second suit may be a little more attractive to our soldiers, as a whole. Again, the hon. Gentleman referred to the observation of my hon. and gallant Friend who said that the British Army must be second to none. My hon. and gallant Friend, however, laid great emphasis on the words "in efficiency," and I venture to hope that there is no Member of the party opposite—even among those who would reduce the Army until it is absolutely no Army at all—who does not demand that the efficiency of our Army shall be as great as, and, if possible, greater than, that of any other Army in the world, as it really is. It is not helpful to men in the Army, or to the people of this country as a whole, when a responsible Gentleman in this House suggests that it would be a good thing if our Army did not aim at being the most efficient in the world.
One point with which, I think, we are not sufficiently conversant, is as to what is going on in the rest of the world. I doubt if there is any man or any party in this House that does not echo the cry, "No more war!" We should all like to see no more war. But we are not being really high-minded, and the bishops who take that text are not, in my opinion, being really spiritual, if they encourage a false hope in the minds of the people of this country, because one might just as well try to convince people, by reiterating the words "No more war" day after day, that there will be no more war, as one might say "No more earthquakes," or "No more snow." I suggest to the spiritual leaders of this country that they are quite right to offer up prayers for no more war; but let us not suggest to our country, which is the only country in the world that has really made a great reduction in armaments, that there is no more consideration of war so far as the rest of the world is concerned.
I should like to refer to one or two facts with regard to our Army position. No man
who desires to see world, disarmament can fail to realise that this country took a tremendous step in the right direction over the Washington Conference. I would remind the House of what has been done with regard to the British Army and trained troops, and of how our troops stand to-day in numbers as compared with our establishment in 1914, at the time when our statesmen were all telling us that never was peace more likely, and that the understanding between European countries was so great that they hoped there was no such thing as a great war in the near future. I want to address these remarks particularly to the supporters of the Government who, on a future Vote on the Army Estimates, will be making suggestions which are very serious for the people of this country. The Regular Army in 1914, before the War, was 250,000, and last year it was 214,000. I think it has now been reduced by 3,000 or 4,000 more. The Army reserve in 1914 was 146,000, and last year it had fallen to 84,000. The special reserve, which is better known to most Members of the House as the old militia, in 1914 was 63,000, and now is nil. The Territorial Force was 265,000, and to-day it is 165,000. I want the House to realise, when we are discussing this question of armaments, that in the trained men of the British military forces, compared with 1914, we have brought about a reduction of 266,000 men. No other country in the world has attempted to do anything on a like scale. I want to ask the House to consider for a moment how our Regular Army and our Reserve compare with the principal Continental countries, and I should also like to quote Japan. These figures may astonish some hon. Members opposite who seem to think the time has come when we might really disband the British Army, because that is what in effect 15 of them have tabled in their Motions. Our active Army and our Army Reserve numbered 309,000 last year. Jugoslavia, which was not a great military power till quite recently, numbers 859,000, Czechoslovakia, 400,000; Belgium, 630,000; Rumania, 1,425,000; Poland, 2,675,000; France, 4,785,000; and Russia—here I should mention I am including an active army of 750,000 and a reserve, although they have not the same reserve as is regarded in France, of 8,000,000 men who they claim are trained and fit men available, but who are not definitely classed as a reserve—
Russia, 8,750,000. The figures I have mentioned, I think, must be regarded by every hon. Member as very serious.

Lieut.-Colonel HODGE: Do you really consider that that is a fair comparison unless you mention at the same time the size of the fleets of the various nations?

Sir H. CROFT: Yes, I am not talking about the fleets.

Lieut.-Colonel HODGE: I am.

Sir H. CROFT: You would, but I am not. I have already mentioned, I thought with the approval of hon. Members who sit round the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that we have reduced our Fleet from a two-power to a one-power standard as far as capital ships are concerned.

Lieut.-Colonel HODGE: You should compare it with the fleets of the countries whose armies you have compared.

Sir H. CROFT: Obviously I made my position quite clear when I said we had led the way to the world in the direction of the reduction of the Navy and the Army. What I want hon. Members to realise is this. I am not suggesting that we should be fighting any other Power, but vis-á-vis Czechoslovakia, Jugoslavia, Poland and Rumania, to take no other countries, it would be absolutely impossible for our Army at its present strength to contemplate action against either. If you take the larger Powers, you will see that where our active Army and Reserve have been reduced by 266,000 men since pre-War times, the military strength in bayonets of the countries that I have mentioned in Europe is 1,000,000 greater to-day than it was before the War. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] I am not suggesting for one moment that that is a desirable or happy state of affairs, but what I do say is that, when you are demanding of your fellow-countrymen, which is practically what is demanded, that you should disband your Army or reduce it still further, you ought to remember the enormous reductions we have already made. We must remember that our commitments to-day are much greater than they were before the War, that at the present time we have an army on the Rhine, commitments in Mesopotamia, small commitments in Palestine, and we have unsettled states of affairs in Egypt and India, and in the latter
country we have reduced the Army to a very great extent.

Captain BERKELEY: The Treaty of Lausanne.

Sir H. CROFT: Yes, there is the Treaty of Lausanne. I only mention these figures because I think they are not generally known. We cannot do our duty to our country in considering these Army Estimates without considering these facts. There are large numbers of people in this country who speak very vociferously on the question of no more war. I hope they will believe me when I say that there is no section of the community who desires to see no more war to a greater extent than the men who have actually been through the War, but we are not going to make war less probable by actually rendering ourselves naked to possible attack. We have reduced our military forces to the bone, and we ask that the Secretary of State shall be supported in maintaining all the forces that we have and that he should not give any countenance whatever to the dangerous proposals that are made by some of his own supporters.

Mr. CLIMIE: Is the hon. and gallant Member keeping in mind page 5 of the Memorandum issued by the Secretary of State for War, in which he says:
The special measures taken during the current year to increase the strength of the Army Reserve should result in the number of reservists being nearly 10,000 greater on the 1st April, 1924, than at the same time last year.

Sir H. CROFT: I am quite aware of that fact, but the hon. Member must remember that the Reserve had practically gone to nothing at the time the Army was demobilised. The Army Reserve before the War numbered 146,800, plus the militia, 63,000. Last year it was down to 84,000.

Mr. CLIMIE: You give no credit for this paragraph in the Secretary of State's Memorandum.

Sir H. CROFT: I will throw that 10,000 in.

Major ATTLEE: I do not think that I have very much to reply to in the way of general criticism of these Estimates. I can certainly join with the hon. and
gallant Member who has just sat down, in his plea for no more war and in his insistance on the point, which I believe is true, that those who have been through the last War are those who are most agreed that it should be the last war. Dealing with the discussion, I will take first of all one or two points made by the right hon. Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthing-ton-Evans). He asked about the Supplementary Reserve and did not much like its name. I do not think it has been particularly happily baptised, but the name does express what the Reserve is. It is a reserve to fill up certain gaps in mobilisation. It is raised under the old Militia Act, but it is not quite the same as the old militia, and therefore we cannot call it that. It is not the same as the special reserve, and so we cannot call it that. It is difficult to see what we could call it that would express exactly what it is except Supplementary Reserve.
The right hon. Gentleman raised a point about the Haldane Committee. The principles of the Haldane Committee have been accepted by the Army Council and are gradually being put into force. They are most important recommendations. They will, I believe, make for the better utilisation of the brain power of the Army. I believe that Report to be extremely valuable in regard to what it points out as to the actual utilisation of brains in the organisation of the Army, and particularly the training of officers, the younger officers and the older officers. My right hon. Friend referred in his speech to the support which is being given by the heads of Woolwich and Sandhurst and of the Schools. We will all agree that the more we can continue education in the Army on the broadest possible lines, the better it will be for the Army and the country. I mention particularly "the broadest lines" because I wish to emphasise that general education in the Army should never be allowed to get very far away from the general outlook of the mass of the people of this country.
I believe we are getting our education away from the very narrow technical basis on which we used to have it when boys left school when very young to go into the Army and therefore had very little opportunity of matching their brains against those of people in other walks of life. With regard to vocational training that is a matter in which we are extremely interested as a practical step. I agree
with what several hon. Members opposite said with regard to vocational training opening up better prospects for the men who join the Army, and I hope that we shall have an advance in that. It is a most difficult problem. We have had committee after committee in the War Office working on the matter, but we are trying again, and I believe we shall make further efforts to see that vocational training is on the right lines, so that while in the Army a man may be not only trained as a soldier, but be trained as a citizen, and be able to take his place in the work of the world when he comes out.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: What about the trade unions?

Major ATTLEE: That is a most important point, which occurred to me as soon as I entered into office. We are looking into this matter, and I think that we should have a conference with the trade unions on the whole question of vocational training. I believe that this is the time when it could be done, and that we could have a conference as to points which have been put forward on both sides. I believe that a full and frank discussion of the whole question would result in our coming to an agreement on the various points. We have had a considerable amount of discussion by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, by the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway and by the hon. Member for Preston (Lieut.-Colonel Hodge), who is an expert accountant, as to the Lawrence Report. We are considering that Report, but, while we have every desire to push on as quickly as possible, it takes some time to adopt the new system, and I think it a little dangerous to suggest that you are going to make definite economies in the actual cost of your accountancy and pay departments. The true lesson of the Lawrence Report is that if you get a sound accountancy system you will get your economies in administration. That is the point, and the detailed way in which that could be worked out is a matter in reference to which we have appointed a committee. I think that one hon. Member was rather drawing the long bow in comparing the cost of accountancy to-day with what is was 30 or 40 years ago, and working it out per head. The enormous
increase in the Army has been in material rather than in personnel, and he did not allow for that at all.
The right hon. Member for Ross (Mr. Macpherson) raised a point about getting a more democratic selection of officers. I believe that everybody who has looked into this matter, in the War Office and outside it, is convinced that we ought to draw our officers from as many different strata of the population as possible. That was the view of the Haldane Report. That is the endeavour that is being made to-day. We have non-commissioned officer classes going through Sandhurst, we have the prize cadet-ships, and we are endeavouring to draw the officers from as wide a range of schools as possible, not from some six or eight of the oldest schools in the country, not even from those that are generally called the great public schools, but right round from all the secondary schools. We want to have a competition for officers, but they should be officers of the right stamp as far as brain power goes. We do not want to lower the standard; we want to cast our net very wide in order to get the best men. On the question of the fees charged, I might say that that point has been under discussion quite recently, and it will be discussed again.
The need of security of tenure for those in the Army has been emphasised. It is impossible for anyone explaining the Army Estimates to give any absolute guarantee of security. We do not know what the future may bring forth. Many of us hope that international arrangement will permit of a far greater disarmament of the nation than we have to-day, and it may come rapidly—more rapidly than many of us may think. It is obvious that you have to consider that when you give any guarantee of security. Everyone knows now that security is a relative term, particularly when applied to military matters.
The hon. and gallant Member for Loughborough (Brigadier-General Spears) made a series of comparisons between the French Army and the British Army. In this country we have never professed to set up an army on the Continental scale; we have never set up a one-power or two-power or any other power standard against which to measure
ourselves, because our conditions are totally different from those of the Continent. The hon. and gallant Member made this sort of comparison: that where we have one battery the French have 40, and that where we have one tank the French have more. The comparison would have been far nearer if he had given us the percentage of the total rather than a comparison between the French army and our own. From what I have seen at the War Office, I am convinced that, as far as invention is concerned with regard to these modern weapons, we are well up to the standard of any other Power. That is an important matter. As long as we have an army we want that army to be as economical as possible, and the more we can economise by wise research and the use of invention, the better.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: I took as a comparison divisions, units, and I maintained that in the French army they were able to protect their men more than we were, because they allowed more guns and more tanks and more artificial and mechanical means of defence per unit than we allowed. I made a comparison by unit, and the unit I took was the division.

Major-General SEELY: Before my hon. Friend replies to that question, may I ask him for a specific reply to the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty, as to how far he can go in assuring us that further provision of machine guns will be made in order to carry out the principle suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Loughborough, that we should have even more mechanical means in our small Army than other armies have?

Major ATTLEE: I am very sorry if I have in any way misrepresented my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Loughborough. Without going into details, I think we are proceeding on absolutely right lines with regard to the increased use of mechanism. We want to experiment thoroughly and to see that we do not build up enormous expenses on wrong lines. I think we are doing wisely in proceeding on the present lines. Regarding the specific point put by the
hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight (Major-General Seely), I cannot answer at the moment, and he will excuse me, I am sure. Reference has been made to the shortage of officers, and an hon. Member has asked whether it has been arranged that some officers are to come through the Territorial Force. The recommendation to give a certain number of commissions in the Regular Army to officers of the Territorial Force has been accepted.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOSEPH NALL: Can the hon. Gentleman say what percentage?

Major ATTLEE: I cannot state any definite percentage at the moment. Points have also been raised with regard to certain cavalry reductions in India. One of these regiments is now in this country, one in Palestine and the other is in India.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is that regiment in Palestine to be withdrawn?

Major ATTLEE: I could not say. It will depend on our commitments there. Questions have been asked about islands such as Mauritius, Hong Kong and the like, and to answer the question as to why some pay and some do not, would be to go into an interesting historical study. For historical reasons some pay and some do not, and from time to time those who do not are asked to contribute. The reason for the difference is that they fall into different historical categories.

Lieut.-Colonel HODGE: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with my point, that the cost of the Army is being misrepresented by more than £1,700,000.

Major ATTLEE: I have not yet dealt with the main point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. I agree that that question may be raised again, and probably will be raised again. To go in detail into the long and interesting speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for Preston (Lieut.-Colonel Hodge) is rather difficult for me. He went into a large number of technical questions of accountancy, and what struck me throughout his speech was that he was rather in the position of forcing an open door. I think he will agree that the Lawrence Report goes a long way
towards meeting some, if not all, of his points, and he knows that the Lawrence Report has been accepted in principle and that the details will be worked out.

Lieut.-Colonel HODGE: Will the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that the recommendation to set up a Committee will be carried out?

Major ATTLEE: I can guarantee to the hon. and gallant Member that we intend to set to work to deal with this accountancy matter just as soon as we possibly can. As soon as we have got through the business of the Estimates we should be able to get on with this work very soon, but I want him to realise that the matter is being taken seriously. He knows very well the practical difficulties that have to be worked out. Let me take one that he himself mentioned. He mentioned a considerable amount about the Royal Army Pay Corps and the Corps of Accountants. Naturally, I could not subscribe to all that he said about that matter. He seemed to me to reserve his greatest strictures for the colonels of the Army Pay Department, and I understand he was himself a colonel in that department.

Lieut.-Colonel HODGE: That is why I can do it.

Major ATTLEE: I think that the hon. and gallant Member knows very well the difficulties there, but it is not quite a matter of saying that one lot of people know all about accounting, and that the other lot of people do not. He knows that there are certain differences of function, that the Pay Corps are dealing with entitlement, and the Corps of Accountants with accountancy, in the main.

Lieut.-Colonel HODGE: And entitlement.

Major ATTLEE: Yes, but in the main there is that distinction, and to reconcile these two Corps is not so easy, and is not to be done all at once. While it is easy to get up and say, "Scrap the older Corps," if you scrap anyone, you are very apt to raise great trouble for yourself in the country, and claims of injustice will be made which we are particularly desirous of avoiding. Whatever changes may be brought in by the Lawrence Report will be done with due regard to the personnel. As to the
detailed points, I think the hon. and gallant Member will agree with me that it is very difficult to follow detailed criticism of Army Estimates page by page, and separate figures, unless one is a very highly trained accountant, and those criticisms are perhaps better reserved for the Committee stage. I do not think there are any other specific points that I should answer.

Lieut.-Colonel HODGE: On a point of Order. The Under-Secretary has stated that there is no other point to reply to, but twice I have stated that the Army—

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order at all.

Major ATTLEE: I think I said generally that it was too difficult a piece of accountancy.

Lieut.-Colonel HODGE: It does not suit you.

Major ATTLEE: I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend can say that there is a falsification of the accounts because the accounts are not done exactly as he wishes. The form of accounts is one that may be criticised by Members of this House, and any criticism of the form of the accounts will be, I can assure him, carefully looked into.

Lieut.-Colonel HODGE: You have no answer.

Major ATTLEE: One or two points were raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Brigadier-General Makins), and one was on enlistment, the question of lack of security there, and some suggestion with regard to the effect of the doles. I think the right way of dealing with difficulties of recruitment is much more in securing a continuous career for the soldier rather than by any other way, because that is the real difficulty in a short service army. Ever since the Cardwell reform, that has been the difficulty, and it is one which we want to see seriously tackled. I hope the House will now allow us to proceed to the Committee stage, after the full discussion we have had on the various points that have been raised.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WILLIAM ALLEN: I only want to take up about four minutes of the time of the House, and the reason is that I do not believe that, if I spoke for
40 minutes or four hours, I should get any more satisfaction than has the hon. and gallant Member opposite. What I want to raise, as I am sure the House will have guessed already, is an Irish grievance. That grievance will be found on page 4 of this Command Paper. I have not the slightest hope that that grievance will be remedied, because I think the War Office and the Secretary of State for War have quite made up their minds regarding it. But it is a grievance. A good deal of it, I must confess, is sentimental, but some of it is practical too. It is the fact that one of the very oldest depots in Ireland is being transferred from the county which I represent to another. That has been occasioned by the reduction of the Army forces last year, and the reduction of the regiment of the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers and the Royal Irish Fusiliers. These two regiments having one battalion strength at the moment, it is considered right that they should have only one depot. The result is that the depot in my county—a recruiting ground for many, many years—is now being entirely done away with. I cannot possibly pass that by without expressing my regret that that has been found necessary. The county which I represent has been noted for its voluntary recruiting powers. The town where I was born has a population of 12,000, and it sent upwards of 3,000 men to the Great War. I think that is a record in enlistments in the British Army. I am very proud of it, and it is a great grief that this depot is being transferred. However, it is now decided by the War Office, and consented to by my right hon. Friend. May I stress just one point? It is hardly fair in this Command Paper to state that these changes would save some £40,000 a year. It is misleading the House to say that the change of this depot will mean a saving of £40,000 a year when, as a matter of fact, it will only save £4,000. It is hardly fair that a statement like that should go uncontradicted. I am satisfied with having made that protest. At the same time, I wish to express great regret that such a change should have been found necessary.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I wish to call attention to the very serious condition which the Army is in owing to the position of the Royal Army Medical Corps. I drew
the attention of the late Under-Secretary of War to the lack of candidates to the R.A.M.C., and at that time the result was given as follows:
I would point out"—
said the then Under-Secretary for War,
that the examination of candidates for the Army Medical Corps was unavoidably held at the very short notice of one month. I think it would be best to see what are the results of the examination held in more favourable conditions.
There were 15 vacancies advertised and only four candidates came forward. There are still 11 vacancies left unfilled. There was no selection whatsoever. What has happened as the result of the experience of giving longer opportunities? Two months' notice was given, and we do not know what the result has been in candidates. I shall be glad if the Under-Secretary for War could really give some information on this particular point. The result has been, I believe, that for 40 vacancies there were only eight candidates. The result is that the whole force is being starved of officers from the very start. This matter requires serious inquiry, and I hope that the Under-Secretary is taking note of my remarks, for what would happen if we really had to go again into war, again to go on active service? The results have been to block promotion. The thing is utterly top-heavy. You have 101 colonels, 343 majors, 422 captains, and only 7 lieutenants. I believe we have the same difficulty with regard to the naval and the Colonial medical services. We want really a competent inquiry into the recruitment of medical officers for the public services.
There is one other point on the subject of the Medical Service which goes to the root of the whole efficiency of the Army. This was a matter also raised last year. It was raised, too, by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn), who asked a question as regards co-operative working between the different Services of the Crown. He got a very tentative reply; a professional reply that was useful so far as it went. The answer was given on 13th May of last year, when the hon. and gallant Gentleman asked whether the Report of the Weir Committee on the education of the Fighting Services had been published, and whether its recommendations had
been given effect to? He received a very full reply, which went into the arrangements laid down, but those arrangements were for the future. They were in the air, if one may say so. What is being done? What has been done to secure co-ordination, particularly, I say of the Medical Services, medical stores, medical personnel, medical institutions, and all these different services, which would allow them to be used with the greater economy and efficiency that would be the case if they were properly attended to now?

Mr. WALSH: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the House is ready to come to a decision on the Motion.

Supply considered in Committee.

[Mr. ENTWISTLE in the Chair.]

NUMBER OF LAND FORCES

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 161,600, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at home and abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925.

Sir J. NALL: I should like to take this opportunity to ask for some further information with regard to the Supplementary Reserve. In the Memorandum—

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next (17th March).

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

PASSENGER SHIPS (SCOTLAND AND IRELAND).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. F. Hall.]

Mr. BUCHANAN: The subject I wish to raise is one which affects every shipbuilding town. It is a question for the Board of Trade to deal with, and it chiefly concerns the ships which carry passengers more particularly between the Port of Glasgow and certain ports in Ireland and the Western Isles. An agitation has taken place against the lack of accommodation provided for the passengers. The accommodation provided on the ships that ply between Glasgow and Ireland, particularly relating to steerage passengers, is not a credit to the Board of Trade. At a time like this, when unemployment is rife in every shipbuilding town where shipbuilding is a staple industry, I think this is the correct time for the Board of Trade to have a more thorough and regular survey of the ships plying between the ports in this country carrying passengers.
Take the Belfast and Glasgow ships. They are owned by G. and J. Burns. They provide, they say, accommodation for cabin and steerage passengers. I have travelled both as a cabin and a steerage passenger. The cabin is fairly comfortable, but the accommodation for steerage passengers is a disgrace to any company, and a disgrace in this year when we claim to be an enlightened community. And yet you have the sad feature of idle men capable of producing good ships, while, on the other hand, you have these ships plying from port to port, when they ought to be scrapped and new boats built in their place. Let me take a worse case. Take the ships plying between Glasgow and the Western Islands, owned by a firm named MacBrayne. The conditions are worse, not only as regards the steerage, but even the cabin accommodation is not up-to-date. I make bold to say that if those ships were plying between this country and, say, France, on routes where well-to-do people used them, the firms who owned the ships would not be tolerated. They have ships at the present time that to my knowledge have been plying between Glasgow and the Western Islands well over 20 years. Their ships are the laughing-stock of every man who understands shipping and the whole purpose of ships. It is a disgrace.
I understand that the Act now governing the survey of those ships was passed in 1906. Since then I think science and the development of the industry of
shipping has given room for considerable improvement, and I think it id the duty of the Board of Trade, at a time when unemployment is abnormal, to compel the owners of ships to see that the accommodation they provide for passengers, and for seamen, is better, and that the ships are of a seagoing character and are made suitable for the traffic in which they are engaged. We think this is a suitable, correct, and a real time when the Board of Trade ought to carry out a thorough survey of these ships, with a view to improving accommodation, making the lives of the sailors more tolerable, the conditions of the passengers better, and with a view of providing useful, remunerative work for those men who, for the last three years, have been walking the streets idle, when they might have been doing something for the nation's good.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members being present—

Mr. MAXTON: I want to press upon the Board of Trade the great importance of doing something in this direction. It is the law of the land that houses that have gone into complete disrepair and have become unsanitary should be closed. It is the law of the land that food that has become diseased should be destroyed. What my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) is trying to impress upon the Board of Trade is that the same general principle should be applied more stringently in shipping. We have great unemployment in the shipbuilding industries. That industry is suffering to-day because the men engaged in it have been too productive. They have produced far too many ships with the result that a great amount of tonnage is lying idle, while at the same time a great quantity of inferior tonnage is sailing the seas. I have in mind particularly a ship that is the only means of communication between the mainland of Scotland and the Island of Lewis. It is called the "Sheila," owned by the MacBrayne Company. It is a Government ship in the sense that it is the mail carrier to the islands. It is a food carrier, and a passenger carrier. It has been on the route for years. It is un-seaworthy. It is slow. It takes a long
time to travel a journey that could be done in a short time. Accommodation for man and beast is quite unsatisfactory, and we suggest that the Board of Trade should exercise its powers to have a complete regrouping, inspection and classification of all the merchant shipping now sailing the seas. The Act of 1906 brought about a change in the position of the Plimsoll mark on ships, and we think, now that we have a superabundance of tonnage, that that Plimsoll mark might be reconsidered again, with a view of removing it so as to make shipping safer both for passengers and crews. In the interests of the travelling public, in the interests of the crews, in the interests of speedier communication, and in the interest of the shipbuilding employés—for whom even the five cruisers only represent a very small fraction of work—the Board of Trade should seriously take this matter up with a view to bringing about some improvement.

Mr. NICHOL: I should like to call attention to the same matter, not so particularly in regard to passenger vessels as in regard to the last point raised by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). Under the changes made in the Plimsoll line by the 1906 Act, we have a very large percentage of the present shipping tonnage built and designed to be safe when fully loaded under the old conditions. These ships were given an extra licence to carry further cargo, especially deck cargo. I want to relate one experience of my own, because it is only on special occasions that it is possible to load these old ships up to the limit of the new loading marks. The case I have in mind was that of a ship going out to the Mediterranean with coal. She was loaded with every ton of coal that could be loaded into her, and had also a deck cargo of bunker coal, but in spite of all that the ship could not be loaded below the original mark. On the voyage out, in spite of a storm, that ship never took a single sea inboard. But, on the voyage back, it happened that she was loaded with roasted iron ore, and the weight of the cargo was such that, even with only a quarter of the cargo space filled, she was loaded right down to the new mark. There were an extra 600 tons over what the ship had been designed for. The
result was that, encountering a storm in the Bay of Biscay, she came within an ace of being lost.
It is only in these instances of very heavy cargoes that this occurs. It occurred in the case of the "Okara" last year, and in the case of the "Trevassa" with a cargo of zinc concentrates. All these old ships are dangerous to the lives of the seamen. They are not dangerous on ordinary voyages with bulky cargoes, because the ship cannot be stowed with cargo beyond the space available; but with zinc concenrates or roasted iron ore, where full use can be made of the latitude of the new loading lines, the ship and every soul on board of her is in very imminent danger. That has been shown in the inquiries. They give the shipping companies a clean bill, but I want to point out that, while they do that, it is only on the basis of these new loading lines, and, in the Indian seas especially, on the loading line for summer loading, to which attention was particularly called, as being a danger, in the case of the "Okara" inquiry. A large percentage of our shipping is laid up, but it is largely the new shipping, because it costs so much per dead-weight ton to build that it does not pay to run it. The new ships in many cases are lying rotting in the sea locks and harbours, but the old ships, which it does pay to run with cheap cargoes, are being run — very largely to the danger of their officers and men.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I am glad to have the opportunity to reply to the important points which have been raised by my hon. Friends from Scotland. There are two main points which they have brought before the Board of Trade. The first is with regard to the survey of ships in so far as passenger accommodation and comfort are concerned and the second is with regard to the desire expressed by them for the reconsideration of the Plimsoll Line, which was moved some years ago. If I may deal with the second point first, I am sure that the House will be concerned, as I understand it always has been, with any danger either to the crew or passengers on boats in connection with the Plimsoll Line. Whenever the matter has been
discussed in the past, Members in all parts of the House have given the most careful consideration to regulations and to safeguards concerning both the safety and comfort of the crew and passengers.
As comparatively recently as 1915—I think upon the instructions of this House—a Committee was appointed to consider the whole question of the Plimsoll line. They went into the matter in very great detail and presented a report. It may be said, generally, that with the new designs of modern ships, the Plimsoll line, in the view of that Committee, might be moved from its original position with comparative safety although until proper arrangements are forthcoming for the secure battening of hatches and the like, it is probable there will be greater discomfort in some respects I can only say on that point that the whole question of the Plimsoll line is being reviewed by my Department at present. It will have to take into consideration the views which were expressed in detail in evidence before the Committee of 1915 and the subsequent information which has been made available to the Department from time to time since then. I think my hon. Friend will not require me to say more to-night than that we are inquiring into the matter, and probably at some later date we may be able to state what our findings are.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: Is it not a fact that the 1915 inquiry only led to the tightening of the hatch coamings?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Speaking from memory I think my hon. Friend is correct. With regard to the other point which has been raised one must always have very great sympathy with shipbuilding centres suffering very badly from unemployment, but I am sure hon. Members will realise that the Board of Trade cannot under its existing statutory powers appoint ships' surveyors and arrange surveying work to deal with unemployment. Their duty under the Statute is to arrange for the survey of ships to secure the safety of the lives and the reasonable comfort of the passengers.

Mr. B. SMITH: Will my hon. Friend in studying this question have serious regard to the question of deck cargoes, especially on timber and coal ships, where the whole of the space and the compartments of the crew are taken
away by having to climb over the cargo to get from forward aft?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I was coming to that. I was trying to deal with the points raised, in the order in which the hon. Member for Gorbals dealt with them. He dealt, first of all, with the question of passenger service and coastal service between Scotland and Ireland and the Western Isles. It is the duty of the Board of Trade to see that boats are surveyed from that point of view. At the time of the "Titanic" disaster it was found necessary to increase the survey staff. That has been done, and we have at the present time rather more than 200 surveyors, who are available to act in this particular kind of work, not only with regard to passengers and the comfort of passengers, but also with regard to the minimum requirements as to cubic space, and superficial floor space for accommodation of crews, etc., and for seeing that the quarters of the crew are reasonably sanitary in other respects so as to protect from such things as the effluvium from cargo, etc. I have every reason to state from the inquiries I have made that the survey is not in any way inefficient at the present time. The significant thing that occurs to me is that the Board of Trade have no evidence in regard to any specific cases in which it is definitely charged or stated that the survey has not been efficient and that the ships which have been the subjects of survey—

Mr. BUCHANAN: I did not charge inefficiency under the present Act: what I did charge to the Board of Trade was
that their standard of efficiency under the present Act is too low. I made a definite charge in regard to the Western Isles ships as was shown by the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division, and particularly in regard to the steerage passengers, which, as the hon. Member for Bridgeton knows, on the boats between Glasgow and Belfast is a terrible thing and a scandal.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member's complaint is against the Act of Parliament, then the whole Debate has been out of order.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, and I was about to remind the hon. Member that we could not criticise the Statute on these points. I will promise my hon. Friends that the point specifically made by the hon. Member for Bridgeton will be inquired into. He gave a specific case. I can only say on the general question that the Board of Trade is exceedingly anxious at the present juncture to see that the survey is sufficient, and that the boats which are under its control in this respect will go to sea in a seaworthy condition, and in such a manner as shall be satisfactory both to the passengers and the crew. We shall be obliged to hon. Members if they will bring to our notice specific cases which can be dealt with within the Statute, and without which we have at present no grounds for a reconsideration of the Statute in the future.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.